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

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

Yes, SMTP sounds like an excellent suggestion.

Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lonvick" <clonvick%cisco.com@localhost>
To: "Bill Sommerfeld" <sommerfeld%sun.com@localhost>
Cc: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz%cmu.edu@localhost>; "Tom Petch"
<nwnetworks%dial.pipex.com@localhost>; <ietf-ssh%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: New core drafts - was: Re: nit in draft-ietf-secsh-connect-25.txt


> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 12:07, Chris Lonvick wrote:
> >> Current in Section 9.5.2  Proxy Forwarding
> >>     The SSH connection protocol allows for proxy forwarding of other
> >>     protocols such as SNMP, POP3, and HTTP.  This may be a concern for
> >>     network administrators who wish to control the access of certain
> >>     ...
> >
> > Actually, I would suggest changing "SNMP" to "SMTP".
>
> That makes sense.  I've updated ARCH to reflect that.
>    http://www.employees.org/~lonvick/secsh-wg/2005-sep-07/
>
> >
> > SNMP makes no sense there since we don't have a UDP forwarding
> > capability in the specs at present.
> >
> > Dunno about anyone else but I started doing SMTP-over-SSH forwarding on
> > a routine basis from my laptop years ago.
>
> I use pine.  (...over ssh)
>
> Thanks,
> Chris