Subject: Re: draft-ietf-secsh-dh-group-exchange-01.txt

From: Darren Moffat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:46:37 -0700 (PDT)

>[email-masked] (Niels Provos) writes:
>
>> In message <[email-masked]>, Darren Moffat 
wri
>> tes:
>> >Matching against the peer's version number to try and work out which
>> >version of a particlar draft they implemented doesn't seem like a good 
idea.
>> Thats who incompatibilities for all the other drafts have been handled, 
too.
>> Look at the code, you will be surprised.
>
>Yes, but for example in our software it is mostly done against our own
>versions. And that is ugly enough. There are many vendors already, and
>there is no guarantee that the application version string stays in the
>same format from version to version.
>
>I don't know of a better way however; changing request names is ugly
>too, perhaps even more so.

This is just one of the ugly things you have to do to deal with a
protocol that hasn't been standardized.  If the protocol had become and
RFC already and then stuff had changed the easiest way would just be
to rev the protocol version number.

--
Darren J Moffat

---

From: Markus Friedl <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 09:25:47 +0200

> to rev the protocol version number.

yes, but i don't think it's a big deal, since not many people
did implement the old version of the draft.

-m