Re: Large lang tag lists (was Re: Speaking of implementation quirks...)

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

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams%sun.com@localhost> writes:

> The known bug is that it uses locales rather than RFC3066 language tags.
> 
> The next release will use RFC3066 language tags and will send its entire
> list of installed locales (mapped to langtags).  Do you propose that we
> do something different?

No, if you actually support all those languages, then including the
full list seems to be the right thing to do. About how many are there?

(My code does impose some arbitrary limits on the lenght of language
and algorithm lists, independent of the maximum packet size, just to
let me use simpler code that would waste cpu or memory for large
inputs. I'll have to reconsider those limits if/when there's a
reasonable use of large lists out there).

> This is the first that I hear of any issue with the size of our
> server's KEXINIT packets.

I don't think there's any problem with the current protocol. There may
be a concern with a hypothetical protocol that changes the
SSH_MAX_PACKET (the packet size that implementations MUST handle) from
today's 32K to a significantly smaller value, say 1K, 

Best regards,
/Niels