IETF-SSH archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

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

To: Jon Bright <jon%siliconcircus.com@localhost>
Subject: Re: Transport I-D: KEXINIT reserved field needs description
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams%sun.com@localhost>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:38:09 -0700

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

This would require the use of extra packets after kex to verify that
one's peer truly did not support the new packets.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Transport I-D: KEXINIT reserved field needs description
  - From: Jon Bright

References:
- Transport I-D: KEXINIT reserved field needs description
  - From: Nicolas Williams
- Re: Transport I-D: KEXINIT reserved field needs description
  - From: Nicolas Williams
- Re: Transport I-D: KEXINIT reserved field needs description
  - From: Markus Friedl
- Re: Transport I-D: KEXINIT reserved field needs description
  - From: Jon Bright

Prev by Date: Implementation support for SSH_MSG_UNIMPLEMENTED
Next by Date: Re: Transport I-D: KEXINIT reserved field needs description
Previous by Thread: Re: Transport I-D: KEXINIT reserved field needs description
Next by Thread: Re: Transport I-D: KEXINIT reserved field needs description
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index