Re: Feedback on draft-ssh-ext-info-00
denis bider <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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 ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Feedback on draft-ssh-ext-info-00
Matt Johnston <[email protected]> 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.