On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Damien Miller <djm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > > > At this point it should be obvious, but let me state that I don?t have > > motivation/time to spend on this right now, given that upstream shows > > 0 interest in this at all :(. > > That's not how I recall it. When you approached me last year, I told > you then that I wouldn't have time to properly look at it for months - > This didn’t come across well, but it could be that I just misunderstood what you were saying. > I have limited time to work on OpenSSH so I have to chose my priorities > carefully. A new authentication mode for a nascent hardware standard > unfortunately had to take a back seat to a big refactoring that has been > almost-finished for two years. > That’s definitely fair. > > When you posted your patches to bugzilla, I it took a while for you to > come up with a protocol spec to review which really should have been > starting point before diving in to write code. > Different people have different approaches :). > > Now it's great that the protocol spec is there to look at, but it still > requires more familiarity with the rest of U2F than I have at present. > The code as it stands also AFAIK requires an incompatibly-licensed > helper library. Neither of these problems are insumountable, but they do > make it harder to start. Agreed. I want to point out that you still haven’t clarified the (to me) crucial question, so let me ask you directly: Do you think, right now, based only on the information you have so far, that you’ll eventually merge a patch adding U2F to OpenSSH? It’s okay to reverse your decision later and I’m not taking this as a promise, but what I do want to know is the upstream sentimen, i.e. if you’re rather adverse to having U2F support in OpenSSH at all. _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
