Re: Extension of the agent protocol for the PKCS#11 URI scheme

[Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec%oracle.com@localhost>]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, der Mouse wrote:

>> I think it's a (past) mistake to think of the agent protocol as being
>> something private, rather than something for which interoperability
>> is desirable and therefore for which standardization is appropriate.
>> I imagine if someone wanted to write an I-D documenting the protocol
>> and setting up a registry for these values, that would be a good
>> thing.  Not that I'm volunteering, mind you.
>
>At least one such I-D has existed; the IETF apparently thew away their
>copies(!), but
>http://www.vandyke.com/technology/draft-ietf-secsh-agent.txt has what
>looks like the latest version I know of.  It's somewhat broken -
>perhaps most notably, it has an eight-bit field for which one of the
>specified values is 301 - but it's about the best I know of.  It, or
>perhaps some other version of that draft, is what I wrote my agent
>implementation to.

	hi, I found the document when looking for the write-ups of the 
protocol and this one seems to be quite different from what OpenSSH and 
many other implementations support. The differences are subtle but there 
are quite a few of them. For example, check format of 
SSH_AGENTC_ADD_RSA_IDENTITY versus SSH_AGENT_ADD_KEY.

	J.

>I am not willing to jump through the IETF's stupid I-D hoops (and, yes,
>I believe that's what they are), so I will not be resurrecting it as an
>I-D.  I would cheerfully collaborate on the content if someone else
>wants to undertake the hoop-jumping.  If not, I'll volunteer to host a
>non-IETF document; under those circumstances, that's about as close to
>a standard as we're likely to get.
>
>/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
>\ / Ribbon Campaign
> X  Against HTML		mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
>/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
>

-- 
Jan Pechanec
http://blogs.sun.com/janp