Re: Proposed WG: SSH, Secure Shell (SECSH)

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> Fri, 14 February 1997 14:53 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06663; 14 Feb 97 9:53 EST
Received: from ietf.org by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11923; 14 Feb 97 9:53 EST
Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa06656; 14 Feb 97 9:53 EST
Received: from jekyll.piermont.com by ietf.org id aa06652; 14 Feb 97 9:53 EST
Received: from [[UNIX: localhost]] ([[UNIX: localhost]]) by jekyll.piermont.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA07066; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:50:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199702141450.JAA07066@jekyll.piermont.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: jekyll.piermont.com: [[UNIX: localhost]] didn't use HELO protocol
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
cc: jis@mit.edu, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, The Internet Architecture Board <iab@ietf.org>, perry@piermont.com, ylo@ssh.fi
Subject: Re: Proposed WG: SSH, Secure Shell (SECSH)
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:24:17 +1100." <23425.855912257@munnari.OZ.AU>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:50:29 -0500
Sender: iesg-request@ietf.org
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>

Robert Elz writes:
> The only other query I have is with respect to the April 97
> (Memphis IETF) milestone... "decide on transport layer protocol".
> Am I missing something here, or is that ambiguous, or is there
> some reason why anyone would even consider (in the IETF) anything
> different than TCP for this?   Is that decision really going to
> take an entire WG meeting (even in one of the new 1 hour slots)?

The real issue is deciding if we can put SSH on top of the TLS group's
work so as to prevent protocol multiplication.

I have to say I'm not entirely comfortable with the wording of some of
our milestones -- we know what they mean, but...

Perry