X-MailHub: mail.nisa.net
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 09:13:00 -0800
From: Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 10:23:09AM -0500, Phillip Rulon wrote:
Adding [EMAIL PROTECTED] to this list, I hadn't realized it wasn't
there. Gord: I can provide you with any back emails if you'd like.
> > Once lsh is working well, I'm not sure if there will be any particular
> > reason why anyone would need to use openssh.
>
> The biggest thing is that most of the people currently writing to
> repositories on subversions are already currently using ssh. I don't
> know that it will be easy to convince them to change.
>
> This is an unfortunate development. It's much more difficult to take something
> away than not to have offered it in the first place. I wish this had been looked
> at before it was deployed. Options please.
Provide equivalent functionality with lsh. Does it do RSA key
authentication, etc? If so, we should first configure it to run lsh
primarily and the hand off to ssh on failure. That way lsh is given
preferential treatment. Then we can test the connection and make sure
that it will actually run.
The point is that RSA is the problem. If we set up lsh to use it we won't
be able to use lsh ether. Having said that, I think we should try to use lsh
as it is, even if it means marginally less security. The DTRT way to go on
this is kserver:. But we seem to have a fear of kerberos problem.
After that, we should contact folks individually and explain that we want
to make a shift to a Free package and work with them individually on this.
OK.
pjr
