Re: Updated EXT_INFO draft - draft-ssh-ext-info-02
[email protected] (Niels Möller)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
denis bider <[email protected]> writes: > (3) "Don't replace SERVICE_REQUEST + ACCEPT" > > I still believe SERVICE_REQUEST + ACCEPT serve no purpose, and waste a > round-trip for no reason. I still fail to see why SERVICE_REQUEST costs a roundtrip time. IIRC, you claimed or guessed that some implementations can't handle NEWKEYS + SERVICE_REQUEST + UERAUTH_REQUEST sent back-to-back. But I don't think I've seen any details. And I really don't think replacing SERVICE_REQUEST is an appropriate or proportionate workaround for such bugs. > This seems like a great opportunity to do away with them. It's fine to have a proposed change to replace SERVICE_REQUEST depend on the proposed extension mechanism. But please don't introduce a reverse dependency. I don't think there's likely to be consensus that we should do anything about SERVICE_REQUEST now, so it's going to be an obstacle to the extension mechanism which is a lot easier to agree on. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.