IETF-SSH archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

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



On Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:10:54 PM +1000 David Leonard <David.Leonard%quest.com@localhost> wrote:

> * s7.1 In the last phrase "the hostname of the SSH server": Sometimes
>   users specify IP addresses instead of hostnames, and the GSS
>   mechanism is expected to deal with it (rightly so). Now, my concern
>   is with the use of the word 'hostname' in the case of targets
>   specified as network addresses.  As written the par seems to imply a
>   client ought to do reverse   DNS if an IP address is given. So I
> suggest changing "the hostname of   the SSH server" to "the given name
> of the SSH server" or something   like that.

I believe the existing text is correct.  The construction of GSSAPI
host-based service names requires a hostname, not an IP address.  Yes,
that means that if the user provides an IP address, the server will need
to reverse-resolve in a secure fashion.

No. I read RFC2743 s4.1 to say that the canonicalizing of the "hostname"
string is the job of the GSS mechanism, and not that of the SSH server
code.

If you agree, then I think a better correction is to just quote the word
"hostname" in the last sentence of s7.1, as was done in rfc2743 s4.1.

RFC2743's use of quotes there indicates that it is talking about a field called "hostname". The quotes are not derisive, and are not intended to suggest that that field is populated with something other than what is normally meant by that word.

Unfortunately, RFC2743 is rather outdated in this respect, as well as in some others, and in some cases it is also unclear. I believe Sam has adequately explained the current thinking among people working on GSSAPI regarding hostname canonicaliation. I expect this issue to be explained rather more clearly in an upcoming revision of the GSSAPI spec.

In the meantime, I still believe the wording in the present document says what we intended, and does not require any changes.



I have been asked to submit an updated version of this document within the next few days, in order to get it on the agenda for the September 1 IESG telechat. Unless Bill finds that we have consensus for a change in this area, I will submit the draft early next week with no further changes.

-- Jeff



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index