←back to thread

SSH3: Faster and rich secure shell using HTTP/3

(github.com)
532 points tempaccount420 | 1 comments | 27 Sep 25 14:27 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
psanford ◴[27 Sep 25 15:48 UTC] No.45396774[source]▶
I do hate the name ssh3. I was glad to see this at the top of the repo:

> SSH3 is probably going to change its name. It is still the SSH Connection Protocol (RFC4254) running on top of HTTP/3 Extended connect, but the required changes are heavy and too distant from the philosophy of popular SSH implementations to be considered for integration. The specification draft has already been renamed ("Remote Terminals over HTTP/3"), but we need some time to come up with a nice permanent name.

replies(28): >>45396871 #>>45397296 #>>45397372 #>>45397399 #>>45397495 #>>45397597 #>>45397619 #>>45397679 #>>45397940 #>>45398115 #>>45398136 #>>45398508 #>>45398532 #>>45398631 #>>45398858 #>>45398975 #>>45399238 #>>45399719 #>>45399778 #>>45400311 #>>45400334 #>>45400419 #>>45400814 #>>45400881 #>>45401030 #>>45401354 #>>45404259 #>>45415504 #
theandrewbailey ◴[27 Sep 25 16:47 UTC] No.45397399[source]▶
Maybe SSH/3 instead (SSH + HTTP/3)?
replies(3): >>45397451 #>>45397469 #>>45397899 #
throwaway127482 ◴[27 Sep 25 17:48 UTC] No.45397899[source]▶
Doesn't /3 mean v3? I mean, for HTTP itself, doesn't the HTTP/3 == HTTPv3? If so, I don't see how this is any better than SSH3 - both SSH3 and SSH/3 read to me like "SSH v3"
replies(2): >>45398237 #>>45400495 #
theandrewbailey ◴[27 Sep 25 18:23 UTC] No.45398237{3}[source]▶
Yes, but HTTP is about the only thing that versions with a slash. By writing it SSH/3, it would emphasize its relationship with HTTP/3, instead of it being the third version of SSH.
replies(1): >>45398317 #
1. ◴[27 Sep 25 18:35 UTC] No.45398317{4}[source]▶