Re: applying AES-GCM to secure shell: proposed "tweak"

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams%sun.com@localhost>]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 11:42:55AM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> No, I think the right thing is for the SSH_MSG_OPTION message itself to be 
> permitted at any time, and leave it to the definitions of individual 
> options to specify when an option may be negotiated and when the results of 
> that negotiation take effect.
> 
> [...]
> 
> With regard to the negotiation itself, I think it might be cleaner to have 
> three separate messages:

Surely you jest.  Why get so complicated when the much simpler
negotiation through alg names will do?  What value is there in this
complication?