Subject: proposal for EOF clarification

From: "denis bider" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:41:35 +0100

I propose that the following text in the SSH Connection Protocol draft...

   When a party will no longer send more data to a channel, it SHOULD
   send SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_EOF.

     byte      SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_EOF
     uint32    recipient_channel

   No explicit response is sent to this message; however, the
   application may send EOF to whatever is at the other end of the
   channel.  Note that the channel remains open after this message, and
   more data may still be sent in the other direction.  This message
   does not consume window space and can be sent even if no window space
   is available.

... be replaced with:

   When a party will no longer send more data to a channel, it SHOULD
   send SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_EOF.

     byte      SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_EOF
     uint32    recipient_channel

   No explicit response is sent to this message; however, the
   application may send EOF to whatever is at the other end of the
   channel.  This message does not consume window space and can be
   sent even if no window space is available.
   
   After a party sends SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_EOF, it MUST NOT send any more
   data or extended data to the channel.  Note that the channel
   remains open after this message, and more data may still be sent in
   the other direction.  Also, after sending SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_EOF, a
   party may still send channel requests, as well as responses to
   channel requests issued by the opposite party.
   
   A channel need not be closed even after both parties have sent
   EOF to the channel.  Although any of the parties may close the
   channel at any time, including after EOF has been both sent and
   received, the parties may continue to exchange data using channel
   requests regardless of what EOF messages have been sent.  For
   example, the server may send an "exit-status" channel request on
   a session channel after EOF has already been sent by both parties.

---

From: "Joseph Galbraith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 08:25:22 -0700

>    a session channel after EOF has already been sent by both parties.

This text looks good to me, and I agree with it.

- Joseph