Re: New core drafts - was: Re: nit in draft-ietf-secsh-connect-25.txt

["Tom Petch" <nwnetworks%dial.pipex.com@localhost>]

I see, belatedly, that secsh-arch still has a reference to SNMP and proxy
forwarding in it.

Since isms has now chosen to pursue SNMP over SSH and since proxy forwarding is
a significant feature of SNMP and since, as far as I can establish, the
reference in secsh-arch has no relationship to any of this whatsoever, I think
that 'SNMP' should be elided from the document before it spreads havoc and
confusion (already widespread in and around isms:-(

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lonvick" <clonvick%cisco.com@localhost>
To: <ietf-ssh%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Cc: <anil%recoil.org@localhost>
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:10 PM
Subject: New core drafts - was: Re: nit in draft-ietf-secsh-connect-25.txt


> Hi,
>
> I've updated the drafts to get all of the messages indented the same way.
> I also found that there were some occurances of "recipient_channel" but
> more of "recipient channel" (mostly in CONNECT) so I harmonized them.
>
> The new set of IDs are here:
>    http://www.employees.org/~lonvick/secsh-wg/2005-sep-07/
> Please look them over.  If no one finds any problems then I'll let the RFC
> Editor know that a few more non-substantiative fixes were made and that
> they can use these drafts to create the RFCs.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
>
> > In Section 6.10 (Returning Exit Status) of draft-ietf-secsh-connect-25.txt,
> > the formatting of the "exit-signal" packet is different from the
> > rest and indented incorrectly.  Breaks my spec-extraction regexp,
> > hence the motivation to point it out :)
> >
> > --
> > Anil Madhavapeddy                                 http://anil.recoil.org
> > University of Cambridge                          http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk
> >