Re: Feedback on draft-ssh-ext-info-00

[Damien Miller <djm%mindrot.org@localhost>]

On Thu, 3 Dec 2015, denis bider wrote:

> > Merely advertising a willingness to accept SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO
> > shouldn't have other further effects on the protocol. To do
> > otherwise is IMO quite surprising.
> 
> Okay, imagine this:
> 
> (1) Instead of the EXT_INFO message, we continue to send SERVICE_REQUEST +
> ACCEPT.
> 
> (2) The KEXINIT extension instead signals that extension fields can be added
> to SERVICE_REQUEST + ACCEPT.
> 
> (3) Presence of the KEXINIT extension further signals that the server can
> send a presumed SERVICE_ACCEPT, without waiting for SERVICE_REQUEST.
> 
> Do you see that this results in the same proposal, just with renamed
> messages?

At the risk of repeating myself, I think providing a simple transport
layer extension mechanism is a fantastic idea, but don't agree that
it should make other protocol changes (except, perhaps as extensions
defined in the same document).

-d