RE: DH KEX names an "aberration"?

[Chris Lonvick <clonvick%cisco.com@localhost>]

Hi,

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 16:56, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>
> > I don't think this level of "legislative history" needs to be in the
> > document; that is what we have mailing list archives for.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > 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.
>
> Also agreed.  Let's not try to predict the future.
>
> > An IETF standards-track document simply cannot say "the
> > working group was unable to reach consensus, but it should be this way".
>
> When i took a straw poll, there was no clear consensus either way.  Since this
> *should have been* a trivial matter, we had a public coin flip.
>
> we seem to have gotten lost inside the bikeshed
> (see http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.19.shtml).

The prior text which seemed to have near consensus was:

   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.

>From the comments it looks like we should remove the text about the
history and the guidance for the future.  As such we would then have:

   Additional methods may be defined as specified in [SSH-NUMBERS]. The
   name "diffie-hellman-group1-sha1" is used for a key exchange method
   using an Oakley group as defined in [RFC2412].  The Working Group
   followed 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] or its successors should not
   attemp to use the same numbering scheme used by [RFC3526].

Is this acceptable?

I do want to say that the primary purpose of this is for [NUMBERS]; this
is supposed to be the instructions for the IANA for the namespace.  It's
duplicated in [TRANS] for completeness.

Since we're meeting in Minneapolis, I'd like to get the IDs resubmitted
before the deadline which is 21 February.  Can I get some feedback on this
soon?

Thanks,
Chris