Subject: Re: Revising the document

From: Mats Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:37:26 +0200 (MEST)

Hi,

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Tatu Ylonen wrote:
> transport layer connection can be closed at any time.  In particular,
> it was not intended to be a transport layer error to close the socket
> (it may be an error for the higher layer protocols).

Fair enough. Though I see no point in NOT having an orderly/well defined
disconnect procedure in a transport protocol.

> SSH_MSG_DISCONNECT was intended to signal errors.  It should not be
> sent on successful termination.

So, the transport layer considers it an error when the application
disconects it? (i.e. SSH_DISCONNECT_BY_APPLICATION). Some of the
disconnect reasons are obvious but some are not well defined IMHO.

> It is basically a client policy issue when to close the transport
> layer connection.

Agreed, that's why I asked since openssh seems to take another stance.

> example if port forwarding is enabled, it may make perfect sense to
> keep the transport layer connection open for a long time even when

Exactly.

On 11 Oct 2000, Niels Möller wrote:
> The important thing is that replies to GLOBAL_REQUEST:s that have
> want_reply = 1 are sent in the right order. There should be no problem
> with having several requests pending.

I know, that's what my code does. Though it could (should?) be explicitly
stated (since this might not be obvious for an implementor?). Note that
it's stated explicitly for channel-requests:
...
The client is allowed to send further messages without waiting for the
response to the request.
...

Cheers,

/Mats