Re: Message Numbers and Disconnect Codes (fwd)

[Chris Lonvick <clonvick%cisco.com@localhost>]

Hi,

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, [iso-8859-1] Niels Möller wrote:

> Chris Lonvick <clonvick%cisco.com@localhost> writes:
>
> > This is the IANA controlled namespace which, as Jeffrey notes below,
> > may contain the "@example.com" extension space if they are defined
> > through an appropriate method.
>
> I can make no sense out of this comment. I think the context for
> Jeffrey's comment was the allocation of the *numerical* reason codes
> in SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN_FAILURE, where the point was that the
> specification for any channel type (no matter if it's standardized or
> a local "foo%example.com@localhost" type) can allocate open failure codes from
> the "channel-type specific" range in

I was saying that the IANA can control values for 'channel type' of
"session" and even "session%example.com@localhost", as long as "session%example.com@localhost"
is registered with the IANA through an RFC - even an Informational RFC.

From that:

> > >> > >> 0x0000 0000 - 0xFDFF FFFF        IETF / connection layer
"session" and "foo%example.com@localhost" get to use this range (as long as any
'reason code' values have been registered with the IANA through an RFC
action).

> > >> > >> 0xFE00 0000 - 0xFEFF FFFF        channel-type specific,
"bar%example.com@localhost" gets to use this range.  Others may choose to also use
"bar%example.com@localhost" and honor the associated codes.  These are not
registered with the IANA.

> > >> > >> 0xFF00 0000 - 0xFFFF FFFF        private range, used any way
No one cares what is used in this range and it will not be honored by
others.  There's also nothing to register with the IANA.


Make sense?

Thanks,
Chris