IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: SSH File Transfer Protocol - draft-moonesamy-secsh-filexfer-00

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Mon, 15 July 2013 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E6A821F9ECE for <ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.011, 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 A12MGfuKnTFe for <ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:7::25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DFA21F9EF5 for <secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id 7316614A1CB; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:20:20 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB29314A1C8 for <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:20:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at NetBSD.org
Authentication-Results: mail.NetBSD.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=opendkim.org header.b=gEPXI805; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=elandsys.com header.b=OTXQNXLh
Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.NetBSD.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id jXWI_41Hdusc for <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:20:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23FF114A1C2 for <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:20:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.153.203]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6F8JxsL015210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1373876416; bh=0T76y9daslrOFkjCgNNKUenLjmMJ49jOC3+Q3sA/YO8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=gEPXI8057dJILXxHvNopdO+BDsOLgf4tbjRc3iJD9drEJdMwn5ku9Ugwpt4x5h476 hw6PBcGyL5r/8Le8XsWDdnzQUmoYplBSsCV9DYaiY4ew0Y+xtcrCdueyjXbeh7Fh96 YpnlXMXTYXSLJwu2WL85qba+yPlR8a+5k3PyP/KA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1373876416; i=@elandsys.com; bh=0T76y9daslrOFkjCgNNKUenLjmMJ49jOC3+Q3sA/YO8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=OTXQNXLhME608U8ykF/mN6TcFWad48ISazdmwJnV9MSER1nnCjY32E61+Y4LeCejV DLB7mFQ/HtzfnoWjhF7hakHygCVfoDnV/XyHhPWoDMrdQRf/KByQwUX+J04LPuZx39 P++DdpIYN53swfB51B33BgCkF9B/geOwnZEDHMlc=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20130715005138.0d08f598@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:59:34 -0700
To: Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: SSH File Transfer Protocol - draft-moonesamy-secsh-filexfer-00
Cc: ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <201307131256.IAA29783@Chip.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130712030130.0beda980@elandnews.com> <201307131256.IAA29783@Chip.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org
List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org
Precedence: list

At 05:56 13-07-2013, Mouse wrote:
>Well...it, combined with the rest of ssh, does; sftp itself doesn't
>provide any significant level of security, depending on lower layers
>for that.

Yes.

>My reaction upon looking at the draft is "what's the motivation?".
>That is, what does this draft offer beyond the existing spec?  (Besides
>the version-number regression others have already pointed out.)  If it
>really is just the things listed in appendix A, it strikes me as not
>worth the version-number confusion.

I have to start somewhere.  I could have choose the latest numbered 
draft or "version 3".  In my opinion it was more practical to choose 
the latter and put in some effort in completing that work.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email