Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
At the end of this message, you'll find a summary from Tero Kivinen of the usage by other protocols of the common MODP groups on the saag list; I think it conclusively demonstrates that every user of the MODP groups is doing something different. That only leaves straw poll: [A] we should use small integers to refer to common groups [sample] diffie-hellman-group2-sha1 [B] we should refer to groups by size: [sample] diffie-hellman-group2048-sha1 [C] we should refer to groups by the ike number [sample] diffie-hellman-group14-sha1 In your response to the poll, please: a) explain the one you prefer and why. b) list any options you find unacceptable and explain why.
I prefer A and find C unacceptable.A is simple and gives us simple and unambiguous way to refer any dh-group in any standard document we like. It is also logic continuation of the current practise.
B is better since we probably are not going to make more than one group of one specific size. However we already have a group not using this convention. Also why knowingly limit the possibility to consistently name several groups in a consistent matter.
C is clearly against the common practise in current protocol standard drafts. It is also inherently inconsistent having already one exception in ssh-draft. More inconsistency arises from the fact that we are not going to use entire ike namespace.
-- Timo J. Rinne <tri%ssh.com@localhost> http://www.ssh.com