Subject: summary of Secure Shell (secsh) meeting at ietf52

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:32:44 -0500

The Secure Shell [secsh] working group met on monday afternoon.  The
ssh core drafts are in WG last call (ending next week) and appear to
be extremely close to done, and the same appears to be true for about
half of the extension drafts.  One new technical issue with the core
drafts was raised during the meeting which will require a respin of
the userauth draft; Jeffrey Hutzelman will describe this issue in more
detail for the list.

Once the core drafts are out of WG last call, we'll start last calls
on the extensions drafts which appear to be done (key file format, dh
group negotiation, keyboard-interactive); gssapi should be next
(authors indicate that there are a few minor issues to resolve).  sftp
and dns key storage both need a bit more work; we expect revised
drafts by the next IETF meeting.

					- Bill

---

From: Darren J Moffat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:55:24 -0800

> drafts by the next IETF meeting.

If I remeber correctly the author of the DNS host key storage draft
said that the have no intention of continuting with it in its current
form and that the draft will be left to expire unchanged.  They wish
to go back to requirements gathering and this may result in solving
the problem space a different way (ie maybe not DNS as I gathered).

I also volunteered to start a new draft for agent forwarding -
requirements for this will be done via this list with at least an 00
draft by next meeting.

--
Darren J Moffat

---

From: Rodney Thayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:01:09 -0700

At the DNSEXT meeting, there was a (mildly surreal) exchange where
they attempted to not allow "yucky applications", like SSH, to
store keys in DNS.  They claimed to want to dodge that work
by waiting until the apps asked for it, and when several people
in the room pointed out that people in the SSH wg were talking
about it, this got ignored.

So I think we need to have something, requirements or whatever,
that we whack the DNSEXT wg with, so they know we're thinking
about it, regardless of what 'we' want to do.

---

From: Wes Griffin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:19:25 -0500

> about it, regardless of what 'we' want to do.

That is the idea, and what I'm in the process of doing, but for a larger
group of applications, not just SSH. I was also told after the meeting,
that I could gut the current draft and re-write it to keep the title,
which I might infact do and turn it into a requirements document. Is
that reasonable?

-- 
Wes Griffin                                                     NAI Labs
wgriffin at tislabs.com                                     443.259.2388

---

From: Rodney Thayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:22:00 -0700

works for me.