On Friday, February 04, 2005 07:44:39 PM +0100 denis bider <ietf-ssh%denisbider.com@localhost> wrote:
I think I prefer the phrasing "[RFC2412] and its successors". Otherwise, Joseph's text looks good.Looks good to me too. It is my impression that the second variant is where we are headed, i.e., with Jeffrey's nit, like this: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.
So far, so good - these groups come from specific documents
Future groups borrowed from [RFC2412] and its successors should not
But "future groups" could come from any of this series of documents, so again, this is the right phrasing.
attempt to use the same numbering scheme used by [RFC3526], but
The numbering scheme is shared by all the documents, not just this one. How about something like...
Future groups borrowed from [RFC2412] and its successors { should continue | should not attempt } to use the same numbering scheme used in those documents...
I really don't recall the results of the coin flip. A quick check of the proceedings shows:
ticket 460, 601: no consensus on list. flipped coin, heads for "group2", tails for "group14", came up tails will stick with diffie-hellman-group14-sha1
That implies the coin flip was only intended to apply to that one decision, and not to set a direction for future naming. Bill, can you comment on this?
I'd prefer to have a direction for future naming, but not at the expense of delaying things indefinitely. If we can agree on a direction, or accept the coin toss as setting one, then we should use one of Joseph's proposed paragraphs (modulo the wordsmithing we've just done).
Otherwise, if/when it is time to submit new documents to resolve the trademark issue, I think we should use Chris's proposed text, which cleans up the explanation of the situation while still leaving the long-term question unresolved.
-- Jeff