Re: DH key exchange message numbers

[Chris Lonvick <clonvick%cisco.com@localhost>]

Hi,

Oops as well.  :-(

I'll propose the following errata:

---vvv---

RFC 4253 "The Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Layer Protocol"

The table in Section 12.

Current:
         SSH_MSG_DISCONNECT             1
         SSH_MSG_IGNORE                 2
         SSH_MSG_UNIMPLEMENTED          3
         SSH_MSG_DEBUG                  4
         SSH_MSG_SERVICE_REQUEST        5
         SSH_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT         6
         SSH_MSG_KEXINIT                20
         SSH_MSG_NEWKEYS                21

Should be:
         SSH_MSG_DISCONNECT             1
         SSH_MSG_IGNORE                 2
         SSH_MSG_UNIMPLEMENTED          3
         SSH_MSG_DEBUG                  4
         SSH_MSG_SERVICE_REQUEST        5
         SSH_MSG_SERVICE_ACCEPT         6
         SSH_MSG_KEXINIT                20
         SSH_MSG_NEWKEYS                21
         SSH_MSG_KEXDH_INIT             30
         SSH_MSG_KEXDH_REPLY            31

---^^^---

Does this cover it?

Thanks,
Chris

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 18, 2006 06:39:26 PM +0100 denis bider 
> <ietf-ssh%denisbider.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> >  Hi all,
> >
> >  am I the only one who can't find KEXDH message numbers defined anywhere
> >  in the now published SSH RFCs?
> >
> >  Given that KEXDH is a required key exchange method, I'd expect those
> >  message numbers to be defined in the Transport RFC. Yet, when I looked I
> >  couldn't find the actual message numbers defined. Is this just my
> >  oversight or is it everyone else's? :-)
>
> Oops.  Indeed, those numbers were removed during editing, as a result of what 
> appears to have been some confusion.  Someone commented during AUTH48 that 
> they should be removed from assignednumbers (now RFC4250), because they were 
> in the method-specific space and thus didn't need to be (and shouldn't be) in 
> the message number registry.
>
> Unfortunately, they also got dropped from -transport, where the method is 
> actually defined.  As a result, these definitions are missing from the 
> protocol suite entirely, which I expect makes it tricky to implement. :-)
>
> The correct numbers are these:
> >            SSH_MSG_KEXDH_INIT             30
> >            SSH_MSG_KEXDH_REPLY            31
>
> I think we need an RFC Errata on this one... :-(
>
>
> BTW, for those who've been looking for it and can't find it, the SSH
> paramaters registry is at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ssh-parameters.
> It seems the IANA hasn't yet published a link to that.
>
> -- Jeff