Subject: connection draft: Global messages

From: Derek Fawcus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:15:16 +0100

Just noticed something in re-reading this:

The global messages are:

   SSH_MSG_GLOBAL_REQUEST   (80)
   SSH_MSG_REQUEST_SUCCESS  (81)
   SSH_MSG_REQUEST_FAILURE  (82)

However section 5.1 refers to SSH_MSG_GLOBAL_REQUEST_SUCCESS  when it
should refer to SSH_MSG_REQUEST_SUCCESS.

So a typo.

But it does rais the question:  should messages 81 and 82 be renamed
along the lines of:

   SSH_MSG_GLOBAL_REQUEST_SUCCESS
   SSH_MSG_GLOBAL_REQUEST_FAILURE

Since it looks like there was some partial attempt at that?

It would also make the names more consistent.

Something else I noticed,  the TCP port forwarding doesn't allow port
zero to be specified,  reserving that for "allocate a port automatically"
ala the sockets API.

So how about using 65536 to mean use port 0?  OK - the sockets API won't
be able to handle it,  but other APIs may.

DF