RE: DH KEX names an "aberration"?

["denis bider" <ietf-ssh%denisbider.com@localhost>]

> 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.
> Future groups borrowed from [RFC2412] and its successors should not
> attempt 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 its source.