Subject: Re: draft-ietf-secsh-break-01.txt

From: Joseph Galbraith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:49:25 -0600

Brian Pence wrote:
> What was the reason for abandoning this ietf draft?  I've had a couple of 
> customer's request this functionality, but as it was never formalized as a 
> standard, I'm not so sure it's a good idea to implement.  It's not even a 
> working draft any more.  What gives?  What's the plans for this?

Basically, if I remember correctly, we are waiting for the
the 'core-drafts' hairball to get to RFC status-- I'm not sure
what the status of this is?????

Once that happens all the other drafts that reference the
core drafts can move forward.

I suppose we just need to freshen the draft to keep it alive
while this process drags on.

As far as being formalized as a standard, it is currently
as formal as any other SSH2 standard-- so if your implementing
any SSH2, don't hold back :-)

- Joseph

---

From: "Phillip Remaker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:09:35 -0700

Did the draft expire?  We can just resubmit it.   All auxillary specs are on
standby until the core drafts are approved.

What the heck is the holdup these days?

Joe, do you want to resubmit it or should I?

---

From: Joseph Galbraith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:19:44 -0600

I'm not sure I've got the most recent XML--
Can you resubmit it?

Thanks,

Joseph

Phillip Remaker wrote:
>>>What was the reason for abandoning this ietf draft?  I've had a couple
> 
> of
> 
>>>customer's request this functionality, but as it was never formalized as
> 
> a
> 
>>>standard, I'm not so sure it's a good idea to implement.  It's not even
> 
> a
>

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:28:27 -0500

> core drafts can move forward.

IIUC, if draft-ietf-secsh-break is ready you can request a WG last call
on it and then submit it to the IESG.  The IESG can actually move to
publish a draft to Proposed Standard before other normative references
that it depends on -- such drafts won't get published as RFCs until
their normative dependencies do, of course.

> while this process drags on.

Nah, freshen it then last call it.

> any SSH2, don't hold back :-)

Heh.

Nico
--

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:38:34 -0400

actually, I issued a last-call on secsh-break back in november.

As best as I can tell, nobody said anything during the last call
period (not atypical)

My bad for not passing it up to the IESG.

Phillip/Joseph: Please re-issue the draft and I'll forward it to our
AD for IETF-wide last call.

						- Bill

---

From: "Phillip Remaker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:38:38 -0700

I just submitted draft-ietf-secsh-break-03 to [email-masked].

Just updated dates and informative references, so that it stays on the radar
screen of the working group.

Text included here for your amusement.

-------------------

Secure Shell Working Group                                  J. Galbraith
Internet-Draft                                          VanDyke Software
Expires: October 18, 2004                                     P. Remaker
                                                      Cisco Systems, Inc
                                                          April 19, 2004

                    Session Channel Break Extension
                     draft-ietf-secsh-break-03.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 18, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   The Session Channel Break Extension provides a means to send a BREAK
   signal [2] over an SSH terminal session [5].

Galbraith & Remaker     Expires October 18, 2004                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft      Session Channel Break Extension           April 2004

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  The Break Request  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . .  8

Galbraith & Remaker     Expires October 18, 2004                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft      Session Channel Break Extension           April 2004

1.  Introduction

   The SSH session channel provides a mechanism for the client-user to
   interactively enter commands and receive output from a remote host
   while taking advantage of the SSH transport's privacy and integrity
   features.  SSH is increasingly being used to replace telnet for
   terminal access applications.

   A common application of the telnet protocol is the "Console Server"
   [2] whereby a telnet NVT can be connected to a physical RS-232/V.24
   asynchronous port, making the telnet NVT appear as a locally attached
   terminal to that port, and making that physical port appear as a
   network addressable device.  A number of major computer equipment
   vendors provide high level administrative functions through an
   asynchronous serial port and generally expect the attached terminal
   to be capable of send a BREAK signal.

   A BREAK signal is defined as the TxD signal being held in a SPACE
   ("0") state for a time greater than a whole character time.  In
   practice, a BREAK signal is typically 250 to 500 ms in length.

   The telnet protocol furnishes a means to send a "BREAK" signal, which
   RFC0854 defines as a "a signal outside the USASCII set which is
   currently given local meaning within many systems." [1]  Console
   Server vendors interpret the TELNET BREAK signal as a physical BREAK
   signal, which can then allow access to the full range of
   adminisrative functions available on an asynchronous serial console
   port.

   The lack of a similar facility in the SSH session channel has forced
   users to continue the use of telnet for the "Console Server"
   function.

Galbraith & Remaker     Expires October 18, 2004                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft      Session Channel Break Extension           April 2004

2.  The Break Request

   The following following channel specific request can be sent to
   request that the remote host perform a BREAK operation.

           byte               SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_REQUEST
           uint32             recipient channel
           string             "break"
           boolean            want_reply
           uint32             break-length in milliseconds

   If the BREAK length cannot be controlled by the application receiving
   this request, the BREAK length parameter SHOULD be ignored and the
   default BREAK signal length of the chipset or underlying chipset
   driver SHOULD be sent.

   If the application receiving this request can control the
   BREAK-length, the following suggestions are made regarding BREAK
   duration. If a BREAK duration request of greater than 3000ms is
   received, it SHOULD be processed as a 3000ms BREAK, in order to
   prevent an unreasonably long BREAK request causing the port to become
   unavailable for as long as 49.7 days while executing the BREAK.
   Applications that require a longer BREAK may choose to ignore this
   requirement.  If  BREAK duration request of less than 500ms, is
   requested a BREAK of 500ms SHOULD be sent since most devices will
   recognize a BREAK of that length.  In the event that an application
   needs a shorter BREAK, this suggestion can be ignored.  If the
   BREAK-length parameter is 0, the BREAK SHOULD be sent as 500ms or the
   default BREAK signal length of the chipset or underlying chipset
   driver.

   If the SSH connection does not terminate on a physical serial port,
   the BREAK indication SHOULD be handled in an implementation-defined
   manner consistent with the general use of BREAK as an attention/
   interrupt signal; for instance, a service processor could use some
   other out-of-band facility to get the attention of a system it
   manages.

   In a case where an SSH connection cascades to another connection, the
   BREAK SHOULD be passed along the cascaded connection.  For example, a
   telnet session from an SSH shell should carry along an SSH initiated
   BREAK and an SSH client initited from a telnet connection SHOULD pass
   a BREAK indication from the telnet connection.

   If the want_reply boolean is set, the server MUST reply using
   SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_SUCCESS or SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_FAILURE [5] messages.  If
   a BREAK of any kind was preformed, SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_SUCCESS MUST be
   sent.  If no BREAK was preformed, SSH_MSG_CHANNEL_FAILURE MUST be

Galbraith & Remaker     Expires October 18, 2004                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft      Session Channel Break Extension           April 2004

   sent.

   This operation SHOULD be supported by any general purpose SSH client.

Galbraith & Remaker     Expires October 18, 2004                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft      Session Channel Break Extension           April 2004

3.  Security Considerations

   Many computer systems treat serial consoles as local and secured, and
   interpret a BREAK signal as an instruction to halt execution of the
   operating system or to enter priviliged configuration modes.  Because
   of this, extra care should be taken to ensure that SSH access to
   BREAK-enabled ports are limited to users with appropriate priviliges
   to execute such functions. Alternatively, support for the BREAK
   facility MAY be imlemented configurable or a per port or per server
   basis.

   Implementations that literally intepret the BREAK length parameter
   without imposing the suggested BREAK  time limit may cause a denial
   of service to or unexpected results from attached devices receiving
   the very long BREAK signal.

Galbraith & Remaker     Expires October 18, 2004                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft      Session Channel Break Extension           April 2004

4.  References

4.1  Normative References

   [1]  Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Protocol Specification", STD
        8, RFC 854, May 1983.

4.2  Informative References

   [2]  Harris, D., "Greater Scroll of Console Knowledge", March 2004.

   [3]  Rinne, T., Ylonen, T., Kivinen, T. and S. Lehtinen, "SSH
        Protocol Architecture", draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-15 (work
        in progress), October 2003.

   [4]  Rinne, T., Ylonen, T., Kivinen, T., Saarinen, M. and S.
        Lehtinen, "SSH Transport Layer Protocol",
        draft-ietf-secsh-transport-17 (work in progress), October 2003.

   [5]  Rinne, T., Ylonen, T., Kivinen, T. and S. Lehtinen, "SSH
        Connection Protocol", draft-ietf-secsh-connect-18 (work in
        progress), October 2003.

Authors' Addresses

   Joseph Galbraith
   VanDyke Software
   4848 Tramway Ridge Blvd
   Suite 101
   Albuquerque, NM  87111
   US

   Phone: +1 505 332 5700
   EMail: [email-masked]

   Phillip Remaker
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95120
   US

   Phone: +1 408 526 8614
   EMail: [email-masked]

Galbraith & Remaker     Expires October 18, 2004                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft      Session Channel Break Extension           April 2004

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

Galbraith & Remaker     Expires October 18, 2004                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft      Session Channel Break Extension           April 2004

   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Galbraith & Remaker     Expires October 18, 2004                [Page 9]