From owner-freebsd-security Sat Jan 1 23: 8:49 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from public.bta.net.cn (public.bta.net.cn [202.96.0.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E140714D09 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 23:08:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robinson@netrinsics.com) Received: from netrinsics.com (gj-05-046.bta.net.cn [202.106.5.46]) by public.bta.net.cn (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20301 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:08:32 +0800 (CST) Received: (from robinson@localhost) by netrinsics.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00600 for security@FreeBSD.ORG; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:09:23 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from robinson) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:09:23 +0800 (CST) From: Michael Robinson Message-Id: <200001020709.PAA00600@netrinsics.com> To: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OpenSSH protocol 1.6 proposal Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org [...to fork or not to fork...] My apologies if this has been sorted out someplace else, but I'm sort of wondering what the point is of trying to fix the SSH protocol. A lot of very smart people worked long and hard on IPSEC. It's an open, interoperable standard. It's simple to implement and understand. It is (I've been led to understand) well-analyzed and theoretically robust. It works. And, significantly, FreeBSD still doesn't have a documented, user-friendly, fully-featured implementation. What is the compelling attraction of yet another potentially shortlived variation on a proprietary protocol? -Michael Robinson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message