Re: [psg.com #460] IESG - Transport - Oakley - new proposal (fwd)

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz%cmu.edu@localhost>]

> > (2) I still think it is a bad idea to continue the practice of using
> > phrases like "group N" to mean completely different groups than the
> > rest of the community means when they say "group N".
>
> I don't think it's possible to fix that, given that we already have
> "diffie-hellman-group1-sha1 mean "well known group 2", (and I think we
> have agreed that it is far too late to change our name for that
> group). I'm afraid that using both an ssh-specific numbering scheme
> (for oakley group 2) and an ipsec-spcific numbering (for oakley group
> 14) will cause even more confusion than sticking to an ssh-specific
> numbering.

Yes, I think we're agreed we can't rename diffie-hellman-group1-sha1.
Personally, I think living with one legacy exception is acceptable, and I 
think consistency with other usage is more important than consistency with 
the previous (IMHO poor) choice.

But, I don't think it's more important than getting the documents out 
sometime this century.

So yes, let's take a straw poll, and move on.

I think everyone knows my position. :-)

-- Jeff