Re: [David Leonard] draft-ietf-secsh-gsskeyex-09.txt comments

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

Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> David Leonard wrote:
> > Here are my comments about draft-ietf-secsh-gsskeyex-09.txt having
> > worked with it to implement it in PuTTY a few weeks back.

[...]

> > * s3.7 "This packet should be sent ...": The word "should" be
> >   capitalized to clarify its meaning?
>
> Possibly.  This text dates back to the original GSSAPI userauth draft, 
> so perhaps Joseph Galbraith can shed some light on whether he intended 
> this to have the force of requirements language.

Hmmm...

I think I agree it should be SHOULD.  I.e., no one should be
slipping in extra packets between
SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_GSSAPI_EXCHANGE_COMPLETE and
SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_SUCCESS unless they have a darn good
reason.

I'm actually tempted to say it should be MUST-- but
that might be a bit too strong when one considers
SSH_MSG_IGNORE and SSH_MSG_DEBUG.

Thanks,

Joseph