IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [saag] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh-00.txt

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 19 June 2013 22:14 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: saag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3335821F9E99; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.993
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.993 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.394, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XJqipr8Jlk1a; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDBF21F9E8B; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5JMDiQi024969 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51C22D02.9030802@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:13:22 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
References: <CDE773CC.3867A%kwatsen@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <CDE773CC.3867A%kwatsen@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "saag@ietf.org" <saag@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh@tools.ietf.org>, ietfdbh <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [saag] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh-00.txt
X-BeenThere: saag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Advisory Group <saag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag>
List-Post: <mailto:saag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag>, <mailto:saag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:14:33 -0000

On 6/19/2013 3:03 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>From a protocol perspective, the solution presented in this draft
> is the same as presented in draft-kwatsen-reverse-ssh-01 with one
> exception, it now requests an IANA-assigned port, instead of using
> port 22, to be consistent with draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-03,
> which makes the same request.

Hi, all,

I was party to the discussion of this issue during the original draft 
(see archives of 5/24/2011), and thought there was appreciation that 
there was no reason to need a new port for this service.

Regarding the netconf draft, that might warrant a single port, but again 
not two ports for the different directions.

As I noted on this list in 2011, directionality should be negotiated 
in-band, not by port number.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email