[Curdle] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 12 September 2017 22:23 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: curdle@ietf.org
Delivered-To: curdle@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFDB12421A; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info@ietf.org, Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, curdle-chairs@ietf.org, daniel.migault@ericsson.com, curdle@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.61.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150525503378.30416.5679611796140295482.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:23:53 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/curdle/sQyMjeVksd_Y7oeaZBJBOEjYUVY>
Subject: [Curdle] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: curdle@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "List for discussion of potential new security area wg." <curdle.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/curdle>, <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/curdle/>
List-Post: <mailto:curdle@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/curdle>, <mailto:curdle-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:23:54 -0000
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info-12: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-ssh-ext-info/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am concerned that the syntax of "delay-compression" is not specified with enough detail to ensure compatible interoperation. I may have missed something in the protocols this document relies upon; but if I haven't, I think this needs additional specification. The current definition for "delay-compression" is: string "delay-compression" string: name-list compression_algorithms_client_to_server name-list compression_algorithms_server_to_client In reading through this document (and skimming RFC4251), I don't see anything that indicates the on-the-wire encoding for "string containing multiple name-lists." I suspect that the intention is something like [string-length][list-length]value[list-length]value; however, that requires making a number of unstated assumptions, and I doubt that all implementors will make the same assumptions. To be clear, what I mean by my formulation above would result in the value field of client_to_server="foo,bar" and server_to_client="bar,baz" being encoded as: 00 00 00 16 00 00 00 07 66 6f 6f 2c 62 61 72 00 00 00 07 62 61 72 2c 62 61 7a If this is the intention, please be explicit (and, ideally, provide an example). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2.4: (*) The message MUST be sent at this point for the following reasons: It's not clear how this normative requirement interacts with this MAY: The second opportunity is just before (*) SSH_MSG_USERAUTH_SUCCESS, as defined in [RFC4252]. The server MAY send EXT_INFO at the second opportunity, whether or not it sent it at the first. One seems to merely allow it, while the other seems to demand it. Could you add some text that clarifies this apparent contradiction?