From owner-freebsd-security Sat Jan 1 23:45:39 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 3C78914E00 for ; Sat, 1 Jan 2000 23:45:36 -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 PAA27053 for ; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:45:30 +0800 (CST) Received: (from robinson@localhost) by netrinsics.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA00772; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:46:19 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from robinson) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 15:46:19 +0800 (CST) From: Michael Robinson Message-Id: <200001020746.PAA00772@netrinsics.com> To: robinson@netrinsics.com, sthaug@nethelp.no Subject: Re: OpenSSH protocol 1.6 proposal Cc: security@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <45439.946797985@verdi.nethelp.no> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Steinar Haug writes: >> What is the compelling attraction of yet another potentially shortlived >> variation on a proprietary protocol? > >A very large installed user base? When you start talking about making non-upward-compatible protocol changes, that point becomes somewhat moot, doesn't it? -Michael Robinson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message