IETF-SSH archive

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

Re: Other Socket Tunnels (Was: New draft Possibilities)



der Mouse wrote:
The extra name in there breaks the format of SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_OPEN.
Since you don't have any data specific to "direct-socket" apart from
that name, it would be better to just make it part of the channel
type (so "direct-udpip", "direct-unix", "direct-named-pipe").
Alternatively, the following format works: [type name at end]
(I'm not commenting on which would be better... just that both are
legal.)

In case anyone cares what I think - I'd prefer one channel type with a
subtype field ("direct-socket" with "udp", "named-pipe", etc).

Well, since no ones volunteering to write a draft
(unless Sara is?), I think this is mostly a
'wouldn't it be nice' conversation :-)

I wish I had time... but I'm not even keeping up
with the drafts I'm on tap for.

Thanks,

Joseph

PS. In case anyone cares what I think-- I'd love to see a draft
for this functionality.



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index