Re: Transport I-D: KEXINIT reserved field needs description

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams%sun.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:28:50PM +0200, Jon Bright wrote:
> Overall, my personal opinion (FWIW) is:
> 
> a) using an extra packet would be best, and
> b) implementations should ignore additional data within packets, or at 
> least within packets with reserved fields allowing for extensions.  Not 
> ignoring additional data basically means reserved fields are useless, 
> since in every case the only decent solution will be a) above, and if 
> that was the desired extensibility mechanism, one could just rely on 
> sending new packet types, receiving SSH_MSG_UNIMPLEMENTED from old 
> clients and then sending the old packet type in order to extend things.

I believe not all implementations reply with SSH_MSG_UNIMPLEMENTED
before userauth or before userauth completes.

To avoid another avalanche of "me toos" :) I will ask for such
information to be sent to me which then I'll summarize.

Nico
--