[PATCH 38/43] secnet.8: Describe capability negotiation in its own section. [and 1 more messages]

[Mark Wooding]

Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> I don't think it is true that there are separate user ranges for
> ordinary and early capabilities.  Whether capability is early depends
> on its semantics.
>
> Oh I see this is part of the next patch.  I don't think this is
> necessary....

Oops.  I thought I'd shuffled everything into the right patch, but I
must have missed that.  Thanks for catching it...

> Capability bits can be made early at the time they are assigned; this
> assignment does not need to be static (although the #define
> CAPAB_EARLY contemplated that it would be).

Indeed, I assumed that they were intended to be statically known.  On
the other hand...

> So overall I think the way to deal with key-exchange-affecting capab
> bits is to simply treat whatever such bits as we locally think exist,
> as early.

OK.  I'll abolish CAPAB_EARLY, and replace it with a `st->capab_early'
member variable constructed at site-apply time.  You do realise that'll
be an extra commit, don't you? :-)

-- [mdw]