State of protocol changes; naming contest

[Sune Foldager]

On 20-02-2010 13:08, Augie Fackler wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Sune Foldager wrote:

>> b) Do we use separate capabilities for each of the high-level features,
>> or lump them together in a single one? I think I prefer the latter, to
>> avoid making the code too complex.
> 
> I'd prefer the former, as it opens the door to having a server only support some of them if (for example) they're expensive to compute and it's a heavily-loaded server.

True, but we will most likely try to roll out all these things in one
batch. On the other hand, you're right in that it makes the server
theoretically more flexible, which I like.

>> c) Do we use a separate capability for the new ssh command format, or
>> lump it together with the one from b (assuming we decided to lump those
>> together; otherwise we need a separate one I guess). I am not sure about
>> this one. It's somewhat a conflation of domains. On the other hand, we
>> don't really need the feature on its own.
> 
> I think it makes sense as its own capability.

In that case it should be called 'protocol=2' or something conveying
similar information. This is a low-level breaking protocol change; the
only compatible thing you can say about it, is that new servers can tell
it apart from the old format unambiguously. If that's not a new
(low-level)-protocol, then I don't know what is.

Thanks for the input :)
/Sune