From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Wed May 02 13:22:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjIWx-0001ut-Lu for secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 13:22:19 -0400 Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([2001:4f8:4:7:2e0:81ff:fe52:9ab6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjIWw-0000Lk-Dc for secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 13:22:19 -0400 Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 0) id C312E63B18C; Wed, 2 May 2007 17:22:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from houba.genoscope.cns.fr (houba.genoscope.cns.fr [195.83.222.130]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF2263B17C for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 17:22:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tx174.tx.local (tx174.tx.local [192.168.243.174]) by houba.genoscope.cns.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6/mr-3.2) with ESMTP id l42GAkNG325077; Wed, 2 May 2007 18:10:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 18:10:46 +0200 From: Simon Vallet To: Jakob Schlyter , Wesley Griffin Cc: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: Clarifications to RFC 4255 ? Message-ID: <20070502181046.55f2974a@tx174.tx.local> Organization: Genoscope / CNRG X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.7.2 (GTK+ 2.10.8; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Hi, looking at the current implementation in OpenSSH, I noticed the compatibility layer (compat/getrrsetbyname.c) makes use of SIG (RRTYPE 24) records, which is the type specified in RFC 4255, =A72.4. However, it seems that SIG RRs are obsoleted in RFC 4034, =A77 (from RFC 3755, =A73) in favour of RRSIG RRs (RRTYPE 46). I was a bit confused by the fact that RFC 4255 both references SIG records and RFC 4034. Shouldn't the RFC be clarified on this topic ? Best regards, Simon --=20 Simon Vallet Ing=E9nieur Syst=E8mes/R=E9seaux Genoscope / CNRG T=E9l. : +33 (0) 1 60 87 36 06 E-mail : svallet@genoscope.cns.fr From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Wed May 02 15:45:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjKlr-0005XS-LF for secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 15:45:51 -0400 Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([2001:4f8:4:7:2e0:81ff:fe52:9ab6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HjKlq-0002Ku-By for secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 02 May 2007 15:45:51 -0400 Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 0) id 0AE0663B11F; Wed, 2 May 2007 19:44:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from mail.kirei.se (wagaya.kirei.se [195.47.254.178]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D4563B109 for ; Wed, 2 May 2007 19:44:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [217.214.74.151] (host-n127-151.homerun.telia.com [217.214.74.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kirei.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D540864D99; Wed, 2 May 2007 19:39:33 +0200 (MEST) In-Reply-To: <20070502181046.55f2974a@tx174.tx.local> References: <20070502181046.55f2974a@tx174.tx.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <2C70C133-E358-4AFA-A5B7-EC4F7E971F2B@rfc.se> Cc: Wesley Griffin , ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Jakob Schlyter Subject: Re: Clarifications to RFC 4255 ? Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 19:39:27 +0200 To: Simon Vallet X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 On 2 maj 2007, at 18.10, Simon Vallet wrote: > looking at the current implementation in OpenSSH, I noticed the > compatibility layer (compat/getrrsetbyname.c) makes use of SIG (RRTYPE > 24) records, which is the type specified in RFC 4255, =A72.4. > > However, it seems that SIG RRs are obsoleted in RFC 4034, =A77 (from = RFC > 3755, =A73) in favour of RRSIG RRs (RRTYPE 46). correct, the implementation of getrrsetbyname is broken. > I was a bit confused by the fact that RFC 4255 both references SIG > records and RFC 4034. Shouldn't the RFC be clarified on this topic ? yes, something like s/SIG RR/RRSIG RR/. perhaps we should put this in =20= the errata? jakob From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Sat May 12 09:48:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hmrw4-00080k-3Z for secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 12 May 2007 09:47:00 -0400 Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([2001:4f8:4:7:2e0:81ff:fe52:9ab6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmrtK-0002dS-If for secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 12 May 2007 09:44:11 -0400 Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 0) id 83CBD63B15F; Sat, 12 May 2007 13:44:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (chiark.greenend.org.uk [193.201.200.170]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BF563B157 for ; Sat, 12 May 2007 13:44:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by chiark.greenend.org.uk (Debian Exim 3.36 #1) with local (return-path jacobn@chiark.greenend.org.uk) id 1HmrtB-00061S-00 for ietf-ssh@netbsd.org; Sat, 12 May 2007 14:44:01 +0100 Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 14:44:01 +0100 From: Jacob Nevins To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Clarifications to RFC 4255 ? Message-ID: <20070512134401.GB19412@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Reply-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070502181046.55f2974a@tx174.tx.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Simon Vallet writes: > I was a bit confused by the fact that RFC 4255 both references SIG > records and RFC 4034. The DNSSEC reference was changed from RFC 2535 to RFCs 4033-4035 at the RFC Editor stage, between draft-ietf-secsh-dns-05 and the final RFC publication, but the text was not changed substantially. From bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org Wed May 23 03:06:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HqkvY-0006gM-5E for secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 23 May 2007 03:06:32 -0400 Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([2001:4f8:4:7:2e0:81ff:fe52:9ab6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HqkvX-0005Wz-Ry for secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 23 May 2007 03:06:32 -0400 Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 0) id 98BE263B138; Wed, 23 May 2007 07:06:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Received: from mo-p07-ob.rzone.de (mo-p07-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.189]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D54563B136 for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 07:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 192.168.1.74 (host217-43-225-129.range217-43.btcentralplus.com [217.43.225.129]) by post.webmailer.de (mrclete mo18) (RZmta 6.5) with ESMTP id F042c0j4N54Obi for ; Wed, 23 May 2007 09:06:23 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <19297151.1179903986294.JavaMail.Postman_Professional@post.strato.de> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 08:06:26 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Thomson Reply-To: Robert Thomson To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org Subject: Proofreading your professional documents Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Cp1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Postman Professional 8.6 X-RZG-AUTH: z4gQVF2k5nCOh4QxALFN68fyEbuh X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo07 Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a Dear Professor/Lecturer Please excuse us for contacting you directly. We are offering an efficient = service to help you ensure your academic and professional work is written i= n perfect English. We will check the grammar and style of your work and ret= urn it to you to meet your requirements and deadlines. Proof-Reading-Service.com can provide you with a professional proofreading = service at a very reasonable rate. All our proofreaders are highly qualifie= d native English speakers. Many work as leading academics in their fields a= nd all have extensive experience of proofreading to the highest standards. If you are interested in our service, please take a look at our website: ww= w.proof-reading-service.com All you have to do is send us your document as = a word attachment with the deadline and we will guarantee delivery of a per= fectly written document to give you complete confidence when you submit you= r work. The fee is worked out on a flat rate (=A36.95 per thousand words or= 0.695 pence per word), so you know exactly how much the proofreading will = cost in advance. Once we have received your document(s) we will confirm the word count, the = price and the deadline. If you have not heard from us within 2 hours during= normal business hours after you have sent your work please resend it from = a different email account or send the file to proofreadings@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you! Yours faithfully Proof-Reading-Service.com