Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-secsh-transport-18.txt

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld%east.sun.com@localhost>]

> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:11:00 -0500
> From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams%sun.com@localhost>
> To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001%cs.auckland.ac.nz@localhost>
> Cc: openssh%roumenpetrov.info@localhost, scottra%wrq.com@localhost, clonvick%cisco.com@localhost,
>         ietf-ssh%NetBSD.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-secsh-transport-18.txt
> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:04:49AM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> > Roumen Petrov <openssh%roumenpetrov.info@localhost> writes:
> > >To write new draft for 5 lines as some people suggest (see list archive) is
> > >waste of time.
> > 
> > It's going to take a *lot* more than those 5 lines to define everything, and
> > since no-one seems to be interested in it, reserving it to be defined in a
> > separate document is a good idea.  If you really want this so badly, you could
> > always write the RFC yourself :-).

Indeed.  Several attempts to recruit an author for such a document
have failed.  

Any *new* volunteers?

> Yup.  And for merely reserving the names the numbers (IANA) doc seems
> best:
> 
> "
> 4.3 Public Key Algorithm Names
> 
>    Algorithm name                Reference
>    ---------------               ---------
>    ssh-dss                       [SSH-TRANS, Section 4.6]
>    ssh-rsa                       [SSH-TRANS, Section 4.6]
>    x509v3-sign-rsa               [SSH-TRANS, Section 4.6]
>    x509v3-sign-dss               [SSH-TRANS, Section 4.6]
>    spki-sign-rsa                 [SSH-TRANS, Section 4.6]
>    spki-sign-dss                 [SSH-TRANS, Section 4.6]
>    pgp-sign-rsa                  [SSH-TRANS, Section 4.6]
>    pgp-sign-dss                  [SSH-TRANS, Section 4.6]
> "
> 
> Just replace the reference to the transport I-D section 4.6 with
> "[TBD]" and remove all references to undefined host key algs from the
> transport I-D.

This is probably the best bet.

.. though I've heard rumors that some folks have indeed implemented
this and may be using the code point already, in which case we may
need to use a different name for the standard version..

							- Bill