Re: uint64

[nisse%lysator.liu.se@localhost (Niels Möller)]

Darren Moffat <Darren.Moffat%eng.sun.com@localhost> writes:

> If it is only used by filexfer then I don't think it should be mentioned
> in architecture at all - especially since filexfer is supposed to be
> independant of the SSH protocol.

To me, it makes sense to have all the encoding rules for all basic
types in one place.

> >I'd like to ask if we really need this type. The alternative is to use
> >mpint (or mpuint, if that is added) for any numbers that can be
> >expected to grow larger than an uint32.
> 
> Do you have any in mind for the core drafts that do need to grow larger
> than uint32 or might need to within a few years ?

Offsets and times in filexfer are the ones I'm thinking of now. In the
other drafts, all big numbers are already specified as mpint.

For other numbers in the protocol, packet sizes are limited, and
32-bit channel numbers and window sizes seem reasonable to me.

/Niels