RE: filexfer: Proposed revision

["Richard Whalen" <Whalenr%process.com@localhost>]

The simplified paragraph works for me.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-ssh-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost [mailto:ietf-ssh-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost]On
Behalf Of Joseph Galbraith
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:14 AM
To: ietf-ssh%NetBSD.org@localhost
Subject: filexfer: Proposed revision


In Section 3.3, we have the following text:

> The use of additional packet types in the non-extension
> range MUST be introduced through IETF consensus. New
> packet types to be sent from the client to the server
> MAY be introduced without changing the protocol
> version (Section 4). Because the client has no way
> to respond to unrecognized packet types, new packet
> types to be sent from the server to the client the
> client MUST not used unless the protocol version is
> changed or the client has negotiated to received them.
> This negotiation MAY be explicit, through the use of
> extensions, or MAY be implicit, by the client itself
> using a packet type not defined above.

Do we really need this much verbosity, or would the
following paragraph do:

 > The use of additional packet types in the non-extension
 > range MUST be introduced through IETF consensus.  New
 > packet types MAY be introduced without changing the
 > version where this can be done in a backwards compatible
 > way.

What do people think?

Thanks,

Joseph