Re: draft-bjh21-ssh-transport-extension-01

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz%cmu.edu@localhost>]

On Wednesday, March 07, 2007 08:34:36 AM -0700 Joseph Galbraith 
<galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost> wrote:

> Ben Harris wrote:
> > I've uploaded a new version of my transport extension draft which I
> > think addresses everyone's comments.  Any more before I wave it at the
> > IESG?  In particular, I'm wondering if I should extend it to allocate
> > similar message numbers for extensions to ssh-userauth and/or
> > ssh-connect.
> >
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bjh21-ssh-transport-extension
> > -01.txt>
>
> I just read this through with an eye towards implementing it,
> and have several comments:
>
> 1. Did I just miss it, or is the message number actually not yet
>    defined?

No, you didn't miss it.  The actual message number won't be assigned by 
IANA until after the spec has been approved by the IESG.  This is normal 
for assignments requiring IESG approval and/or IETF consensus action.


> 2. SSH_MSG_UNIMPLEMENTED has some drawbacks (in particular, it isn't
>    reasonably possible to identify which packet was unimplemented.)
>
>    For unrecognized extensions, I'd rather see a predefined
>    extension:
>
>    byte      SSH_MSG_TRANSPORT_EXTENSION
>    string    "unrecognized-extension"
>
>    that should be sent in response to a extension the implementation
>    doesn't recognize.
>
>    This has the advantage that the sender can differentiate between
>    implementations not implementing the draft and implementations
>    not implementing the extension.

I'm not sure whether this is necessary, but if it is, then it's likely also 
necessary to indicate _which_ extension was unexported.



> 3. Do we need a nod to in-order vs. out-of-order processing:

Yes, that's probably a good idea.

-- Jeff