Re: I-D ACTION:draft-galb-secsh-publickey-subsystem-02.txt

["Brent McClure" <mcclure%swcp.com@localhost>]

Joel,

It looks like the version of this document posted to
internet-drafts%ietf.org@localhost is out sync with a more recent
version that Jon Bright posted to the working group on 7/25.

There are a number of differences, including the fact that
Jon's 7/25 version includes the often-neglected Security Considerations...

We should probably iron that out.

--Brent

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel N. Weber II" <ietf-secsh%joelweber.com@localhost>
To: <ietf-ssh%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-galb-secsh-publickey-subsystem-02.txt


> Under ``2.1 Opening the Public-Key Subsystem'', it is said that
> clients SHOULD reject a request for this subsystem.  I suspect that
> that should instead be a MUST.
> 
> Under ``2.2 Requests'', is there a good reason to disallow a client
> sending more than one request and expecting that the server will
> respond to them in order?  (If there is, I think the draft should
> probably have a sentence explaining what problem that requirement is
> solving; if not, pipelined requests should be allowed.)
> 
> Editorial nitpicking:
> 
> ``3. Public-Key Subsystem Operations'' says that four requests are
> defined, including ``command'', but I think ``command'' got absorbed
> into the key attributes.
> 
> A case-insensitive grep for ``secsh'' in the core drafts doesn't
> appear to find any places where the protocol's proper name is
> ``SECSH''.  I believe that ``the Secure Shell protocol'' and ``the SSH
> protocol'' both appear, though.
>