From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 10:43:50 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA14288 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 26611 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 14:43:48 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 26604 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 14:43:46 -0000 Received: from node.061-0.ty.link.si (HELO levitator.1div0.com) (213.250.43.61) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 14:43:46 -0000 Received: from intergalactic ([10.1.1.2]) by levitator.1div0.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with SMTP id QAA24159; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:43:00 +0200 From: "denis bider" To: Cc: , Subject: availability of specifications Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:45:33 +0200 Message-ID: <006301c14b50$e4595090$0201010a@intergalactic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Folks, this SSH2 gig looks a bit like a private party. Why has the transport draft not been updated on the IETF website? Rather, one has to dig through the mailing list archives to retrieve the latest version. Is it impossible to have the folks at IETF make an exception and accept a belated update? Why has the whitespace formatting of the various drafts changed between versions, making diff tools useless? To make the documents prettier, or to confuse outsiders? I can accept that everyone has the best of intentions, but the side effect of such decisions is confusion. Is that what a standards body is supposed to be for? Worst of all, why has the SFTP specification become unavailable? I try to download http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-01.txt, and I get "Unrevised documents placed in the Internet-Drafts directories have a maximum life of six months. After that time, they are deleted." There are working SFTP implementations out there. It's supposed to be an open standard. How can the specification just disappear? The message such carelessness conveys is: "If you weren't with us when the SFTP specification was still available, don't bother. We don't care for newbies." Is that what everyone here is trying to say? I think that, at minimum, someone should put the SFTP specification back online. Regards, denis From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 10:52:37 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id KAA14947 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:52:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 29814 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 14:52:33 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 29807 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 14:52:32 -0000 Received: from faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (131.188.30.102) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 14:52:32 -0000 Received: (from msfriedl@localhost) by faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (8.9.1/8.1.16-FAU) id QAA22273; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:52:25 +0200 (MEST) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:52:24 +0200 From: Markus Friedl To: denis bider Cc: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org, ylo@ssh.fi, sjl@ssh.fi Subject: Re: availability of specifications Message-ID: <20011002165224.B16057@faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <006301c14b50$e4595090$0201010a@intergalactic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <006301c14b50$e4595090$0201010a@intergalactic>; from ietf-ssh@denisbider.com on Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 04:45:33PM +0200 Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 04:45:33PM +0200, denis bider wrote: > Why has the whitespace formatting of the various drafts changed between > versions, making diff tools useless? wdiff works fine. From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 12:05:49 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA18638 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:05:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 10869 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 16:05:48 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 10862 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 16:05:47 -0000 Received: from faui45.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (131.188.34.45) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 16:05:47 -0000 Received: from faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (msfriedl@faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.30.102]) by faui45.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (8.9.1/8.1.49-FAU) with ESMTP id RAA02513 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:50:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from msfriedl@localhost) by faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (8.9.1/8.1.16-FAU) id RAA24889; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:50:38 +0200 (MEST) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:50:38 +0200 From: Markus Friedl To: denis bider Cc: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org, ylo@ssh.fi, sjl@ssh.fi, openssh@openbsd.org Subject: Re: availability of specifications Message-ID: <20011002175038.C16057@faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <20011002165224.B16057@faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <006501c14b55$9dcbff60$0201010a@intergalactic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <006501c14b55$9dcbff60$0201010a@intergalactic>; from denis.bider@denisbider.com on Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:19:22PM +0200 Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:19:22PM +0200, denis bider wrote: > > > Why has the whitespace formatting of the various drafts > > > changed between versions, making diff tools useless? > > > > wdiff works fine. > > Thanks, actually I noticed that in the archives, but I thought it was a > reasonable argument nevertheless. editors changed, so formatting changed. i don't buy this point. sftp is gone because there is no editor. > Now that I'm speaking, I think there's one other major problem with SSH2. > With so many implementations out there, the specification should now be > done. Over. Completed. yes, but this is what the group is be talking about (if there would be any traffic on the list). > Right now, we should be working on SSH 2.1, not SSH > 2.0. That would be the right approach, and it would solve many problems that > we are now encountering. The way it is right now, we have a deployed > standard and yet we're trying to hack it with improvements and new request > types. We're trying to have it both ways. i don't think anyone want's to _change_ the current specification. all we try to do is find ambiguities and fix them. > Such behavior seems irresponsible to me. > > I don't know about you, but if it were up to me, I would be pushing to make > SSH2 official as it stands in current implementations, ASAP. The very fact > that widely deployed implementations already exist is a violation of the > standardization process. I think we need to fix that situation, not make it > worse by continuing to tinker with the 2.0 version of the protocol. > > I think we need to seal version 2.0 as it is and then proceed with 2.1. but this is what the current work is about. i don't understand your point. or do you suggest to say: this is 2.0, in 2.1 we will remove all ambiguities? -m From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 12:34:45 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA19474 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15781 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 16:34:44 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 15774 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 16:34:43 -0000 Received: from node.061-0.ty.link.si (HELO levitator.1div0.com) (213.250.43.61) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 16:34:43 -0000 Received: from intergalactic ([10.1.1.2]) by levitator.1div0.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with SMTP id SAA24391; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:33:58 +0200 From: "denis bider" To: "'Markus Friedl'" Cc: , Subject: RE: availability of specifications Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:36:31 +0200 Message-ID: <006601c14b60$650059f0$0201010a@intergalactic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-reply-to: <20011002175038.C16057@faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > editors changed, so formatting changed. i don't buy this point. I don't mind, it's not a critical point. I'm just saying it isn't nice. > sftp is gone because there is no editor. Is that a matter of volunteering? Well, if no one else volunteers, then I will. Someone has to do the job. Should I apply? If yes, how do I do it? > i don't think anyone want's to _change_ the current specification. > all we try to do is find ambiguities and fix them. That's alright then. While browsing the archives, I gathered the impression that there were several proposals for changes to the existing protocol. My impression must have been mistaken. But how about the transport draft? Is there really no way to get the latest version published? From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 12:59:01 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA20675 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:59:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 18512 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 16:58:59 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 18505 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 16:58:56 -0000 Received: from node.061-0.ty.link.si (HELO levitator.1div0.com) (213.250.43.61) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 16:58:56 -0000 Received: from intergalactic ([10.1.1.2]) by levitator.1div0.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with SMTP id RAA24256; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:16:49 +0200 From: "denis bider" To: Cc: "'Markus Friedl'" , , Subject: RE: availability of specifications Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:19:22 +0200 Message-ID: <006501c14b55$9dcbff60$0201010a@intergalactic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-reply-to: <20011002165224.B16057@faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Why has the whitespace formatting of the various drafts > > changed between versions, making diff tools useless? > > wdiff works fine. Thanks, actually I noticed that in the archives, but I thought it was a reasonable argument nevertheless. Now that I'm speaking, I think there's one other major problem with SSH2. With so many implementations out there, the specification should now be done. Over. Completed. Right now, we should be working on SSH 2.1, not SSH 2.0. That would be the right approach, and it would solve many problems that we are now encountering. The way it is right now, we have a deployed standard and yet we're trying to hack it with improvements and new request types. We're trying to have it both ways. Such behavior seems irresponsible to me. I don't know about you, but if it were up to me, I would be pushing to make SSH2 official as it stands in current implementations, ASAP. The very fact that widely deployed implementations already exist is a violation of the standardization process. I think we need to fix that situation, not make it worse by continuing to tinker with the 2.0 version of the protocol. I think we need to seal version 2.0 as it is and then proceed with 2.1. From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 13:43:36 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA22678 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:43:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 24864 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 17:43:35 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 24857 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 17:43:34 -0000 Received: from inet.org (HELO gnat.inet.org) (63.108.254.91) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 17:43:34 -0000 Received: from mosquito.inet.org (rja-laptop [10.30.34.139]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE7582670; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:43:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011002133236.009fbac0@10.30.15.2> X-Sender: rja@10.30.15.2 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:36:16 -0400 To: "denis bider" From: RJ Atkinson Subject: RE: availability of specifications Cc: In-Reply-To: <006501c14b55$9dcbff60$0201010a@intergalactic> References: <20011002165224.B16057@faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list At 11:19 02/10/01, denis bider wrote: >The very fact that widely deployed implementations already exist >is a violation of the standardization process. Denis, No, that is NOT a violation of the IETF standardisation process. If you think otherwise, please cite page, section, and paragraph from RFC-2026 to support your contention. Clearly, we need to FIX the ssh2 specs before those specs can/should go out as any sort of RFCs. The lack of co-operation from SSH Comm Sec (the company) hasn't helped things much, so don't jump on the IETF about the delays. Take your gripes about delays either to Finland or (better) /dev/null. Ran From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 14:41:33 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA24969 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 5060 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 18:41:32 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 5053 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 18:41:31 -0000 Received: from patan.sun.com (192.18.98.43) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 18:41:31 -0000 Received: from sunmail1.Sun.COM ([129.145.1.2]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19339; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:45:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com (jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.83.130]) by sunmail1.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1-Sun.COM.mod.2) with ESMTP id JAA11085; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from braveheart (braveheart.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.81.60]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.12.1+Sun/8.12.1) with SMTP id f92GjxBH345241; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110021646.f92GjxBH345241@jurassic.eng.sun.com> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Darren Moffat Reply-To: Darren Moffat Subject: Re: availability of specifications To: ietf-ssh@denisbider.com Cc: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-MD5: 4zWhs3jbst79FQo+RHtHUQ== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.5_46 SunOS 5.9 sun4u sparc Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list >Why has the transport draft not been updated on the IETF website? Rather, Because it missed the cut off by 5 minutes before the last IETF meeting and I as the editor haven't yet had time to resubmit it with the changes requested on the list. >one has to dig through the mailing list archives to retrieve the latest >version. Is it impossible to have the folks at IETF make an exception and >accept a belated update? yes it is impossible to get the IETF people to accept a submission that hit 5 minutes after the cut off time. People do this in their "spare" time don't complain unless you are willing to standup be counted and do a better job. >Why has the whitespace formatting of the various drafts changed between >versions, making diff tools useless? To make the documents prettier, or to >confuse outsiders? I can accept that everyone has the best of intentions, >but the side effect of such decisions is confusion. Is that what a standards >body is supposed to be for? It changed because the document editor changed and I don't have the tools available that the previous editor did so I had to spend about 10 hrs converting them to a tool I did have, it was very very painful. >Worst of all, why has the SFTP specification become unavailable? I try to >download >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-01.txt, and I Because it has expired and nobody cared to update it. IMO that is fine because I don't personally like the protocol anyway, this issue has been raised by my self and others on the list if you read the archives. >get "Unrevised documents placed in the Internet-Drafts directories have a >maximum life of six months. After that time, they are deleted." There are >working SFTP implementations out there. It's supposed to be an open >standard. How can the specification just disappear? The message such >carelessness conveys is: "If you weren't with us when the SFTP specification >was still available, don't bother. We don't care for newbies." Is that what >everyone here is trying to say? No, you seem to have a miss understanding of how the IETF works I suggest you go and read all the RFCs and docs on the IETF site about how working groups and drafts work before complaining. >I think that, at minimum, someone should put the SFTP specification back >online. Someone needs to take ownership of it and update the draft and resubmit it so it is valid for another 6months. -- Darren J Moffat From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 15:31:32 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA26806 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:31:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 17808 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 19:31:29 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 17799 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 19:31:27 -0000 Received: from node.061-0.ty.link.si (HELO levitator.1div0.com) (213.250.43.61) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 19:31:27 -0000 Received: from intergalactic ([10.1.1.2]) by levitator.1div0.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with SMTP id VAA24706; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:30:44 +0200 From: "denis bider" To: "'Darren Moffat'" Cc: Subject: RE: availability of specifications Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:33:17 +0200 Message-ID: <007001c14b79$16792a50$0201010a@intergalactic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-reply-to: <200110021646.f92GjxBH345241@jurassic.eng.sun.com> Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > People do this in their "spare" time don't complain unless > you are willing to standup be counted and do a better job. Well, if there's anything I can do, I'm all for it. Just let me know how I can help. > Because it has expired and nobody cared to update it. > IMO that is fine because I don't personally like the > protocol anyway, this issue has been raised by my self > and others on the list if you read the archives. The way I see it, it is a protocol that is being used. I personally don't have a problem with SFTP. It's certainly safer than FTP, it's more elegant than FTP, it's implemented by a non-trivial number of products, and it works. So, I would like to see a normative, publicly available SFTP specification. (As opposed to a deleted one.) > No, you seem to have a miss understanding of how the IETF works > I suggest you go and read all the RFCs and docs on the IETF site > about how working groups and drafts work before complaining. > > I think that, at minimum, someone should put the SFTP > > specification back online. > Someone needs to take ownership of it and update the draft and > resubmit it so it is valid for another 6months. So, in order to get the SFTP specification back online, do I need to read all those RFCs and docs, or is there a faster way? I understand that people are here because they volunteer to be. So am I. I am observing that there are problems, and that I am dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. I am willing to make reasonable contributions in order to fix the things that I am complaining about. If there is no way for me to help get the SFTP specification back online without investing an unreasonable amount of time, I take that as an indication that things are seriously broken. From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 15:47:01 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA27011 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:47:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 20029 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 19:47:00 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 20022 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 19:46:58 -0000 Received: from node.061-0.ty.link.si (HELO levitator.1div0.com) (213.250.43.61) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 19:46:58 -0000 Received: from intergalactic ([10.1.1.2]) by levitator.1div0.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with SMTP id VAA24744; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:46:10 +0200 From: "denis bider" To: "'RJ Atkinson'" Cc: Subject: RE: availability of specifications Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:48:43 +0200 Message-ID: <007401c14b7b$3efc7e80$0201010a@intergalactic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20011002133236.009fbac0@10.30.15.2> Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The lack of co-operation from SSH Comm Sec (the company) > hasn't helped things much, so don't jump on the IETF about > the delays. Actually, big commercial vendors are who I was alluding to when I commented that this looks like a private party. I don't know the reality of the situation, I'm just saying what it looks like. If the big commercial vendors care about keeping SSH2 an open protocol, I find it strange that they let drafts such as SFTP simply disappear. It's as if IETF doesn't really matter to them. From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 15:58:54 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA27477 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:58:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 21811 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 19:58:53 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 21804 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 19:58:53 -0000 Received: from mx04.nexgo.de (151.189.8.80) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 19:58:53 -0000 Received: from localhost (dsl-213-023-062-231.arcor-ip.net [213.23.62.231]) by mx04.nexgo.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DECA37DCA; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:58:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 31451) id D2EF3441C; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:58:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:58:30 +0200 From: Markus Friedl To: Darren Moffat Cc: ietf-ssh@denisbider.com, ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: Re: availability of specifications Message-ID: <20011002215830.A417@folly> References: <200110021646.f92GjxBH345241@jurassic.eng.sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200110021646.f92GjxBH345241@jurassic.eng.sun.com>; from Darren.Moffat@eng.sun.com on Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:46:00AM -0700 Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:46:00AM -0700, Darren Moffat wrote: > >I think that, at minimum, someone should put the SFTP specification back > >online. > > Someone needs to take ownership of it and update the draft and resubmit it > so it is valid for another 6months. At the IETF serveral people expressed interest in SFTP but it seemed that everyone was confused about the status of the drafts or did not know why or that they disappeared. who want's to work on the drafts? is there any interest? -m From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 16:30:43 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA28470 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 27358 invoked by uid 605); 2 Oct 2001 20:30:42 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 27351 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 20:30:42 -0000 Received: from inet.org (HELO gnat.inet.org) (63.108.254.91) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 20:30:42 -0000 Received: from mosquito.inet.org (rja-laptop [10.30.34.139]) by gnat.inet.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179A68266F; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011002162134.01df2de0@10.30.15.2> X-Sender: rja@10.30.15.2 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:23:44 -0400 To: "denis bider" From: RJ Atkinson Subject: RE: availability of specifications Cc: In-Reply-To: <007401c14b7b$3efc7e80$0201010a@intergalactic> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011002133236.009fbac0@10.30.15.2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list At 15:48 02/10/01, denis bider wrote: >Actually, big commercial vendors are who I was alluding to when I commented >that this looks like a private party. I don't know the reality of the >situation, I'm just saying what it looks like. > >If the big commercial vendors care about keeping SSH2 an open protocol, I >find it strange that they let drafts such as SFTP simply disappear. It's as >if IETF doesn't really matter to them. If this is your anxiety, then you clearly haven't heard of OpenSSH, which has an implementation with a BSD-style licence. You might try looking into them using your favourite web search engine or such like. OpenSSH is pretty darn widely deployed, so I'm startled that you weren't previously aware of it hence erronously thought commercial firms were dominating SSH2 development. Ran From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 20:00:16 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA03817 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 20:00:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 427 invoked by uid 605); 3 Oct 2001 00:00:06 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 420 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 00:00:05 -0000 Received: from mail.vandyke.com (HELO vandyke.com) (204.134.9.1) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 00:00:05 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (HELO merlin) by vandyke.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.7) with SMTP id 324865; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:01:47 -0600 Message-ID: <01b401c14b9e$5a7caa40$2800a8c0@test.vandyke.com> From: "Joseph Galbraith" To: "Markus Friedl" , "Darren Moffat" Cc: , References: <200110021646.f92GjxBH345241@jurassic.eng.sun.com> <20011002215830.A417@folly> Subject: Re: availability of specifications Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:00:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm definitely interested in working on it, and definitely interested in co-authoring with other interested parties. It has been on my list of things to do (revive the draft) but I haven't had time yet. Joseph Galbraith galb-list@vandyke.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Friedl" To: "Darren Moffat" Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 13:58 Subject: Re: availability of specifications > On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:46:00AM -0700, Darren Moffat wrote: > > >I think that, at minimum, someone should put the SFTP specification back > > >online. > > > > Someone needs to take ownership of it and update the draft and resubmit it > > so it is valid for another 6months. > > At the IETF serveral people expressed interest in SFTP but it seemed > that everyone was confused about the status of the drafts or did > not know why or that they disappeared. > > who want's to work on the drafts? is there any interest? > > -m > From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 20:17:51 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA04303 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 20:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 4088 invoked by uid 605); 3 Oct 2001 00:17:44 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 4081 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 00:17:43 -0000 Received: from cpe-61-9-164-74.vic.bigpond.net.au (HELO mothra.mindrot.org) (61.9.164.74) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 00:17:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (djm@localhost) by mothra.mindrot.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f930PbE04601; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:25:38 +1000 X-Authentication-Warning: mothra.mindrot.org: djm owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:25:37 +1000 (EST) From: Damien Miller To: Joseph Galbraith cc: Markus Friedl , Darren Moffat , , Subject: Re: availability of specifications In-Reply-To: <01b401c14b9e$5a7caa40$2800a8c0@test.vandyke.com> Message-ID: X-Paranoia: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Joseph Galbraith wrote: > I'm definitely interested in working on it, and > definitely interested in co-authoring with other > interested parties. I'd be interested too. -d -- | Damien Miller \ ``E-mail attachments are the poor man's | http://www.mindrot.org / distributed filesystem'' - Dan Geer From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 2 23:31:40 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA11942 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:31:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 525 invoked by uid 605); 3 Oct 2001 03:31:40 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 518 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 03:31:39 -0000 Received: from mail.vandyke.com (HELO vandyke.com) (204.134.9.1) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 03:31:39 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (HELO joseph) by vandyke.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.7) with SMTP id 324941; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:33:22 -0600 Message-ID: <005e01c14bbd$af1d4e00$140210ac@galbraiths.com> From: "Joseph Galbraith" To: "Damien Miller" Cc: "Markus Friedl" , "Darren Moffat" , , References: Subject: Re: availability of specifications Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:44:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I'm definitely interested in working on it, and > > definitely interested in co-authoring with other > > interested parties. > > I'd be interested too. Great. Given that I had intended to do this but had not gotten around to it, I spoke to the powers that be, and I now officially have two hours a week set aside to work on drafts. Let's see if we can settle on a set of authors in the next couple of days, and then see if we can't get the existing draft resubmitted in the next couple of weeks. I would suggest that we start with the -00 draft, and then merge in the appropriate changes from the -01 draft that was recalled. We should probably submit that so that we have a working SFTP draft. I know both Markus and I have done implementations off the -01 draft. Then, we should bump the SFTP version number to 4, and start addressing issues people have with the protocol and/or draft. Hopefully, we can make some good forward progress. If we get good participation on the mailing list (and we as authors can stay responsive) we should easily have another version of the draft out before the meeting in December. Joseph Galbraith galb-list@vandyke.com From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Wed Oct 3 02:57:06 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id CAA00672 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:57:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 25734 invoked by uid 605); 3 Oct 2001 06:57:04 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 25727 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 06:57:03 -0000 Received: from nic.appgate.com (193.12.107.226) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 06:57:03 -0000 Received: from shala.firedoor.se (shala.firedoor.se [172.23.2.27]) by nic.appgate.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96F7C3BD07; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:57:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by shala.firedoor.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3796C007; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:24:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:00:14 +0200 (CEST) From: "Andersson, Mats" X-Sender: To: Joseph Galbraith Cc: Markus Friedl , Darren Moffat , , Subject: Re: availability of specifications In-Reply-To: <01b401c14b9e$5a7caa40$2800a8c0@test.vandyke.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Hi, On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Joseph Galbraith wrote: > I'm definitely interested in working on it, and definitely interested > in co-authoring with other interested parties. I'd be interested to help out too. Cheers, /Mats From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Sun Oct 21 09:52:50 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA12947 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:52:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 2297 invoked by uid 605); 21 Oct 2001 13:52:31 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 2107 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2001 13:52:26 -0000 Received: from tomts15.bellnexxia.net (HELO tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net) (209.226.175.3) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 21 Oct 2001 13:52:26 -0000 Received: from localhost ([64.228.87.86]) by tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with ESMTP id <20011021135225.XMIP19401.tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net@localhost> for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:52:25 -0400 X-Sender: ochalskird@yahoo.ca From: Rich To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:44:09 -0700 Subject: This Was Seen On 20/20 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011021135225.XMIP19401.tomts15-srv.bellnexxia.net@localhost> Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi There! Several months ago, I made a conscious decision not to delete what I figured was just another 'junk' e-mail. That decision has changed my life! Here you have the very same opportunity in front of you. If you take just five minutes to read through the following program you won't regret it. See for yourself ... ALL INVOLVED WILL PROFIT!! That is a promise. Please go to: http://www.secretwebbargains.com I promise you, that there is no pop-up screens are anything like that, in fact there is no pictures just text and I strongly recommend that you at least read the information. Whatever you decide, GOOD LUCK. Rich From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Tue Oct 23 13:13:21 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id NAA12012 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:13:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 16777 invoked by uid 605); 23 Oct 2001 17:13:13 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 16770 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2001 17:13:12 -0000 Received: from mercury.sun.com (192.9.25.1) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 23 Oct 2001 17:13:12 -0000 Received: from sunmail1.Sun.COM ([129.145.1.2]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20297; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com (jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.85.31]) by sunmail1.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1-Sun.COM.mod.2) with ESMTP id KAA24796; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from braveheart (braveheart.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.81.60]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.12.1+Sun/8.12.1) with SMTP id f9NHDAj0837141; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110231713.f9NHDAj0837141@jurassic.eng.sun.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:13:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Darren Moffat Reply-To: Cthon@Sun.com, audrey@vanb.com Subject: Connectathon 2002 To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Cc: audrey@vanb.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-MD5: 6Meb/I4YjqLuqD6txhIocQ== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.5_46 SunOS 5.9 sun4u sparc Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list The Connectathon team is delighted to announce its 16th annual event will take place as scheduled. Connectathon 2002, an interoperability testing event for engineers only, will be held Feb. 28-Mar. 7, 2002 in San Jose, California. Sponsored by Sun Microsystems, Inc., Connectathon hosts over 50 companies from around the globe in an effort to test and debug source code. Currently, the following technologies and protocols are on the agenda: NFS versions 2, 3 and 4 NFS over RDMA WebNFS Lock Manager NIS/NIS+ Automounter Kerberos IPv6 IPsec Mobile IPv4 Mobile IPv6 Secure Shell NDMP Based on demand, in addition we are considering to offer: Service Location Protocol Diameter/AAA CIFS ATM If you are interested in testing any of the above 4 protocols, please send a note to Cthon@Sun.com and we'll gauge interest. Or if you have a suggestion for another technology, feel free to contact us as well. Testing continues 24 hours per day. Technology testing coordinators will organize testing procedures and test suite material. In addition, there will be seminars with speakers addressing various topics. The registration deadline is February 7, 2002. An Early Bird Discount on station fees is available to those who register and pay by December 31, 2001. For registration information, please see our web site at http://www.connectathon.org. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Audrey Van Belleghem at audrey@vanb.com or (408) 358-9598. We look forward to seeing you at the 16th annual Connectathon event! Audrey Van Belleghem Darren Moffat Connectathon Manager Secure Shell Connectathon Coordinator From ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-archive=odin.ietf.org@netbsd.org Wed Oct 31 21:27:50 2001 Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [155.53.1.253]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id VAA07541 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:27:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7782 invoked by uid 605); 1 Nov 2001 02:27:21 -0000 Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: (qmail 7662 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2001 02:27:15 -0000 Received: from mage.qualcomm.com (129.46.65.64) by mail.netbsd.org with SMTP; 1 Nov 2001 02:27:15 -0000 Received: from [129.46.77.249] (dhcp480.qualcomm.com [129.46.77.249]) by mage.qualcomm.com (8.12.1/8.12.1/1.0) with ESMTP id fA12Qt9I021927; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:26:55 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: jwn2@mage.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: eudora51-ffc10713011434 X-PGP-RSA-Fingerprint: EA53 01A6 C076 F9C2 09E8 9480 645A 8857 X-PGP-DH-Fingerprint: 4F5E 56C9 BD4D 0227 331F 6AEE 9590 24F9 6FD7 04F8 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:25:14 -0800 To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org From: John W Noerenberg II Subject: Re: availability of specifications Cc: Joseph Galbraith , Markus Friedl , Darren Moffat , , "Andersson, Mats" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@netbsd.org Precedence: list Excuse me, I'm just peeking in from outside. From all this discussion, it appears none of the drafts have made it to Marcus or Jeff for consideration by the IESG. Do I have that right? -- john noerenberg jwn2@qualcomm.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- While the belief we have found the Answer can separate us and make us forget our humanity, it is the seeking that continues to bring us together, the makes and keeps us human. -- Daniel J. Boorstin, "The Seekers", 1998 ----------------------------------------------------------------------