Re: DH KEX names an "aberration"?

[Ben Harris <bjh21%bjh21.me.uk@localhost>]

In article <69EACAED88E645DE657FEDED%SIRIUS.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU@localhost> you write:
>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.

I agree.  To my mind, the naming of future KEX methods really isn't
important, and certainly isn't worth an entire page of explanatory text. 
The names are opaque strings, and anyone wanting to know what one means will
have to refer to the IANA registry anyway (since the two methods defined so
far use different naming schemes), so the next one (if group exchange
doesn't make it redundant) could perfectly well be called
diffie-hellman-plippyploppycheesenose-sha1 without causing any problems.

My feeling is that [SSH-TRANS] should be silent both on the history of the
existing names and what names should be used in future.

-- 
Ben Harris