Subject: Re: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-secsh-break-04

From: Phillip Remaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 06:21:24 -0700

Good point.  I'm ambivalent, but I will copy ietf-ssh to see what the 
opinion of the people who have already developed the protoype code think.

I would be OK with the deletion of not present, and assume that all 
requests must have a break length set with 0 being the default (default 
break length of server)

But I would like to hear opinions.

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> This is a very minor point but it needs clearing up.
>
> From review by Elwyn Davies:
>
> Possible issue:
> [I say 'possible' because I am not an ssh expert but there is an 
> apparent inconsistency with other ssh documents which makes me wonder].
> s2: para 4: The text says 'If the BREAK-length parameter is 0 *or not 
> present*, the BREAK SHOULD be interpreted...'. As far as I can see no 
> other ssh message has optional parameters in this way. Although it 
> would obviously be possible to cope with both cases, it seems to be 
> unusual and makes parsing the message more complex than it needs to 
> be, given that this message is going to be a relative rarity. Was this 
> intended? If so I think it would be desirable to add an explicit note 
> closer to the message definition to point out that the parameter is 
> optional. Otherwise just delete 'or not present'.
>
> BC: As I read the spec, the channel request always includes
>   uint32    break-length in milliseconds
> so the case where the break-length parameter is absent simply doesn't
> exist. If that's correct, indeed just delete 'or not present'.

---

From: Ben Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:45:29 +0100

>opinion of the people who have already developed the protoype code think.

FWIW, PuTTY has always included the field, and set it to 0.

-- 
Ben Harris

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:38:42 -0400

>>>>> "Phillip" == Phillip Remaker <[email-masked]> writes:

    Phillip> Good point.  I'm ambivalent, but I will copy ietf-ssh to
    Phillip> see what the opinion of the people who have already
    Phillip> developed the protoype code think.

I did so yesterday and my reading of the consensus of that list is
that I will add an rfc editor note removing the possibility that the
break length field is absent.

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:25:49 -0400

> break length field is absent.

That is my reading of the consensus as well. 

						- Bill