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

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:23:20 +0000

On 6/19/13 6:23 PM, "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>However, unless I'm
>misunderstanding the intent here, using a fixed port at all seems
>limiting to me.  What if I'm running two different applications on my
>machine, and expect different devices to connect to them, or even the
>same device to both?  What if there are other people sharing my machine?
>Shouldn't be port be either one dynamically assigned to the application
>by the OS, or configured by an administrator?

Indeed, it is not uncommon for deployments to use non-standard ports.
For this reason, the YANG module presented in the Device Configuration
section defines the <port> field as optional, stating that the IANA-
assigned port is assumed if it's not filled in.

>OK; I'll try to find some time to re-review it, then.  In the meantime,
>it would probably be good to bring this document up on the ietf-ssh list
>again.

Very much looking forward to your review of the Security Considerations.
If at all possible, please also try to expand your review to the
possibility of reversing the TLS protocol in the same fashion (i.e. The
TCP client becomes the TLS server, and visa versa).

As for the ietf-ssh list, I know you're right, but we have a problem, the
mail archives have half of today's messages under the NETCONF list and
half under the SAAG list:

   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/maillist.html
   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/saag/current/maillist.html

Worse, at least one message shows up under both archives and clicking the
"Follow-Ups" links drops some of the responses because they're in the
other group's archive.  This will make it very hard for someone to piece
together the exchange that has occurred so far.  Suggestions?

Thanks again,
Kent