Re: DH KEX names an "aberration"?

[Joseph Galbraith <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>]

Chris Lonvick wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The coin toss was for this subject.  Please read over the prior and
> current text and let me know if the proposed text sounds good.
> Wordsmithing would be appreciated.
>
> Past - [TRANS]-21:
>
>    Additional methods may be defined as specified in [SSH-NUMBERS].
>    Note that, for historical reasons, the name
>    "diffie-hellman-group1-sha1" is used for a key exchange method using
>    Oakley Group 2.  This is considered an aberration and should not be
>    repeated.  Any future specifications of Diffie Hellman key exchange
>    using Oakley groups defined in [RFC2412] or its successors should be
>    named using the group numbers assigned by IANA, and names of the form
>    "diffie-hellman-groupN-sha1" should be reserved for this purpose.
>
> Current - [TRANS]-22:
>
>    Additional methods may be defined as specified in [SSH-NUMBERS].
>    Note that, for historical reasons, the name
>    "diffie-hellman-group1-sha1" is used for a key exchange method using
>    an Oakley group as defined in [RFC2412].  Subsequently, the Working
>    Group attempted to follow the numbering scheme of group numbers from
>    [RFC3526] with diffie-hellman-group14-sha1 for the name of the second
>    defined name.  This is considered an aberration and should not be
>    repeated.  Any future specifications of Diffie-Hellman key exchange
>    using Oakley groups defined in [RFC2412] or its successors should be
>    performed with care and a bit of research.
>
> Proposed - [TRANS]-next
>
>    Additional methods may be defined as specified in [SSH-NUMBERS].
>    Note that for historical reasons the name
>    "diffie-hellman-group1-sha1" is used for a key exchange method using
>    an Oakley group as defined in [RFC2412].  Subsequently, the Working
>    Group attempted to follow the numbering scheme of group numbers from
>    [RFC3526] with diffie-hellman-group14-sha1 for the name of the second
>    defined name.  This inconsistency should not be repeated.  The naming
>    of future specifications of Diffie-Hellman key exchange using Oakley
>    groups defined in [RFC2412] or its successors should be performed
>    with forethought and care.

I don't recall the results of the coin toss, and it isn't
clear from this.  So how about one of the following, depending
on which way the toss went:

  Additional methods may be defined as specified in [SSH-NUMBERS].
  Note that for historical reasons the name
  "diffie-hellman-group1-sha1" is used for a key exchange method using
  an Oakley group as defined in [RFC2412].  Subsequently, the Working
  Group attempted to follow the numbering scheme of group numbers from
  [RFC3526] with diffie-hellman-group14-sha1 for the name of the second
  defined name.  Future groups borrowed from [RFC2412] should continue
  to use the same numbering scheme used by [RFC3526].  However, without
  specific IETF action, no addition groups from [RFC3526] are valid in
  the SSH protocol.

OR:

  Additional methods may be defined as specified in [SSH-NUMBERS].
  Note that for historical reasons the name
  "diffie-hellman-group1-sha1" is used for a key exchange method using
  an Oakley group as defined in [RFC2412].  Subsequently, the Working
  Group attempted to follow the numbering scheme of group numbers from
  [RFC3526] with diffie-hellman-group14-sha1 for the name of the second
  defined name.  Future groups borrowed from [RFC2412] should not attemp
  to use the same numbering scheme used by [RFC3526], but should
  use numbering unique to SSH.  I.e., the next group defined for SSH
  should be diffie-hellman-group2-sha1, regardless of it's source.

Thanks,

Joseph