Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-08.txt

[Joseph Galbraith <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>]

der Mouse wrote:
> > > section 3.3 mentions the possibility of using SSH_FXP_EXTENDED to
> > > negotiate the uses for packet types 210-255, and refers to the
> > > section on the extensions.  But the section on extensions (9.) does
> > > not mention a formal way of negotiating usage.  How about [...]
> >
> > Hmmm... I didn't specify this because I don't think we know enough
> > about how somone might possible use this.
>
>
> I think this is the right tack to take.  Until we have some experience
> with such extensions, I think it's premature to standardize how to do
> them.
>
>
> > > 9.1.2 [...]
> >
> > Done.  Do people think this is superior to the MD5 stuff?
>
>
> I do, because it subsumes the md5-hash stuff: specify an algorithm-list
> containing only md5 and it amounts to much the same thing.  The only
> difference I see is the quick-check stuff, and that can be done too at
> the cost of another round trip.
>
> However, there is one unclear spot.  It's not clear whether there is
> any spec for which algorithms the server supports - the text says that
> "[c]urrently supported algorithms are [..list..]", but it's not clear

Does it clear it up if I change it to ...currently defined
algorithsm...?

> I can't recall whether anyone caught this before, but in case not: in
> 9, describing "extended-request", I see "..extensions have use the..",
> which needs to have "have" struck.

Thanks, I reworded the section to use the boiler-plate text for
this with the xref to the architecture draft.

I'll probably publish in the next couple of days, so keep the
feedback coming.

Thanks,

Joseph