Re: [Isms] Comments about draft-ietf-isms-secshell-13, Section 5

[Wes Hardaker <wjhns1 at hardakers.net>]

>>>>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:20:52 -0500, "David Harrington" <ietfdbh at comcast.net> said:

DH> By all means, please double check my logic on this ...

I agree with what you've said...  I think we can safely require that
if you wish to use the SSH transport we require a SM above that passes
down a tsmStateReference.  We could probably work around that, but I'm
not sure it's worth documenting for the standard.  It doesn't make it
"unmodular".  It doesn't even prevent an implementation from doing it,
because as we know implementations frequently don't exactly model the
"an" v3 architecture but are still protocol-on-the-wire conferment.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.