IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: secsh wg status

Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@gmail.com> Fri, 24 March 2017 20:24 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 970BC1294A3 for <ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6kpRzafuxFyM for <ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [199.233.217.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00047127ABE for <secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id 5E477855B9; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:24:27 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCAA4855AF for <ietf-ssh@netbsd.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:24:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at netbsd.org
Authentication-Results: mail.netbsd.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 IEw9IPrTqOmu for <ietf-ssh@netbsd.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:24:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-it0-x231.google.com (mail-it0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3733884CE3 for <ietf-ssh@netbsd.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:24:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 190so1297154itm.0 for <ietf-ssh@netbsd.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2T54XRfco41kVrGwsR77HxwlaVIl5CMcHKNbcViWe6k=; b=DlT4NSNxThf6F3qcjHKKn0qoE+WAul8LsXbg0zEAal1JdLTZT4lVi/+ceBKFNErUzO nPUMKrolr7AEEbJQWfzLWl3dOZdQn5SDeQix3gSDIQ++R0I8a7MWvsrRg9DqcwqdqprL nDXVAgRbqY+z4uPpCyV+P8zOGo5tuXL1rhnI49ctqaMwQ3eQpEryeEB5IOl9cG/yebd0 7UAiG/3kO10KGEU+9xbRP4z6KSkjO8kcwWF8QMm6nS0Kcp2HmC3GQGP9zsr7IwPUFwTW uu8g2F2p04n3Q4eVV9nEC7Q2uBUJmj3UfpXK+xTq8+5Obk2O0KVIhXKqfZCrIh9GIINH 48Tg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2T54XRfco41kVrGwsR77HxwlaVIl5CMcHKNbcViWe6k=; b=jm97M2T1AjHVwETKRJQMpCEQpj3nvYla9S8CEyoR26/DVManoZhTdYBBrY1SQVMlQm AoLTec+vluCPiSUCrAWEoqvCGJXJXq3X7kQahNhZOEzcGjV4r6vdhN7rmiA8YjSplF9I LpmcyAdGc9QOkiZ2nFbxsLoXuYYCqOvJ8bZrVC1uRxoLtGy6lSlbrMBY1JyfH6PThu8e 9oISy1lSsRolRgMD+ELcUMa++YzLpsE+cScJFPmCzMvWWuML1scPjhCURnoFmM6G1YBe Ftr8v4xY+ssSC4GL3qjSwm+/kcW9nmisX1ncauwMrLk5KgO606VLLpYSaLhov3qiNSdu ztpA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2ejit2GCMWr5cAW3ipFKlXYngX7PzSwGOhoxMj42fSh/IWlzt2WV+3G/ieAKs8iGE20jD42+mrXfQaqQ==
X-Received: by 10.107.138.206 with SMTP id c75mr10266863ioj.32.1490387064488; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.97.101 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201703221334.JAA23120@Stone.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
References: <CAOp4FwTXBST6iz0b8+aBSG+WVDEWb3Ox1+59fK1XT39GKznsnA@mail.gmail.com> <64d6da52-bed1-1388-383e-5023b07c8311@cs.tcd.ie> <201703221334.JAA23120@Stone.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
From: Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 00:24:24 +0400
Message-ID: <CAOp4FwSGdW-jOj2rMDmpw06QZp5HDVGH5sV0-Dc=BWRz7VG9cw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: secsh wg status
To: Mouse <mouse@rodents-montreal.org>
Cc: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org
List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org
Precedence: list

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Mouse <mouse@rodents-montreal.org> wrote:
>>> The secsh wg has been declared as "concluded" [...]
>> If there're enough folks who want to do enough good work to justify
>> the IETF WG being reformed, [...]
>
> Personally, and as an implementer, I see no current need for a WG
> (especially given the general direction I see IETF going), but it does
> sound good to me to keep the mailing list alive.  I do want to talk ssh
> implementations occasionally, albeit no more than occasionally.
>

Well, not having RFCs match what the latest versions of
implementations are doing does not sound good. I agree that receiving
too many mails from a WG is not desirable. If we could find the right
balance, I think that a WG is useful.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email