IETF-SSH archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

RE: DH KEX names an "aberration"?





On Monday, February 07, 2005 01:34:00 PM -0800 Chris Lonvick <clonvick%cisco.com@localhost> wrote:

   Additional methods may be defined as specified in [SSH-NUMBERS].
   Note that the name "diffie-hellman-group1-sha1" is used for the first
   defined key exchange method using an Oakley group referenced from
   [RFC2412].  The Working Group first attempted to progress the
   namespace scheme by using "diffie-hellman-group2-sha1" for the second
   defined key exchange (kex) name.  This name was never used in any
   Working Group documents but was discussed in the mailing list.  It is
   not known if this kex name was implemented in any shipping code.
   During this deliberation period, the Working Group wanted to provide
   for a better naming scheme and attempted to follow the numbering
   scheme of group numbers from [RFC3526].  This resulted in the
   selection of "diffie-hellman-group14-sha1" rather than
   "diffie-hellman-group2-sha1" which the Working Group felt was not as
   descriptive.  After this name was generally approved by consensus and
   started appearing in subsequent Internet Drafts (and shipping code),
   it was noted that the numbers associated with the groups in [RFC3526]
   were assigned by the IANA and may be changed in the future, or that
   numbers may not be used at all.  This caused some indecision within
   the Working Group which was resolved at the Working Group meeting at
   the 60th IETF with the formal adoption of the
   "diffie-hellman-group14-sha1" name for the second defined kex method.
   This inconsistency should not be repeated in the future.  Future
   groups borrowed from [RFC2412] or its successors should not attempt
   to associate SSH kex algorithms with numbers from [RFC3526].  The
   naming of future specifications of Diffie-Hellman kex methods using
   Oakley groups defined in [RFC2412] or its successors should be
   performed with forethought and care.  It will probably be best if
   future names are unique to SSH and not dependent upon any external
   naming or numbering schemes.  Authors of future kex proposals may
   wish to consider the use of "diffie-hellman-group3-sha1" or
   "diffie-hellman-group15-sha1" for the next name.


I don't think this level of "legislative history" needs to be in the document; that is what we have mailing list archives for.

I do not believe this document should make a value judgement on whether "it will probably be best if future names are unique to SSH", because I do not believe that we have consensus on whether that statement is true.

When I started reading your message, I was going to avoid revisiting Tero's argument that numbers assigned in an IANA-managed registry are not stable. However, since you've included a statement to that effect in the text, I must point out that this also was a point of contention. It was not "pointed out" or "noted" that IANA was a bunch of morons who would randomly change the meaning of a protocol constant defined by IETF consensus. It was argued, and there was argument against this position.


I'm sorry, but given that there was considerable argument over these issues and no clear resolution, I am opposed to any language in the draft which implies otherwise. An IETF standards-track document simply cannot say "the working group was unable to reach consensus, but it should be this way". Any statement made in such a document must be the _result_ of WG consensus.


-- Jeff



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index