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

[denis bider <ietf-ssh3%denisbider.com@localhost>]

This is what I would prefer also. However, as far as I've understood, it's not what Markus implemented for OpenSSH.

If Markus and Damien wanted to implement this - that both sides presenting ext-info-{s,c} should reliably lead to both sides sending SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO - then I would prefer to modify the draft this way.

However, it would be counter-productive to knowingly specify behavior different from this major implementation.


----- Original Message -----
From: Niels "Möller" 
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 02:14
To: Matt Johnston 
Cc: denis bider ; Damien Miller ; Markus Friedl ; ietf-ssh%netbsd.org@localhost 
Subject: Re: Feedback on draft-ssh-ext-info-00

Matt Johnston <matt%ucc.asn.au@localhost> writes:

> Why not keep just ext_info_{c,s} and specify that client and server
> both MUST send SSH_MSG_EXT_INFO immediately after SSH_NEWKEYS iff both
> sent ext_info_{c,s}? Then they both know what to expect.

Sounds ok to me.

Regards,
/Niels

-- 
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.