Re: draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 for IETF 82 in Taipei ?

["Mark D. Baushke" <mdb%juniper.net@localhost>]

Hi Denis,

My understanding is that it is possible to do this all via e-mail rather
than f2f at the IETF 82 meeting...

Reading http://www.ietf.org/tao.html ...

seems to indicate that petitioning the Security Area Advisory Group
(SAAG) could be asked to look at the ietf-ssh mail archives and bring it
up for consideration/arguments on the IETF 82 agenda.

I think you need to re-issue your draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 draft
as draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-03 to have one which is not expired
send a notcie to both ietf-ssh%NetBSD.org@localhost and saag%ietf.org@localhost with a
subject like:

  draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-03 submission for Draft Standard

A cover email letter pointing at multiple interoperable implementations
means that folks get to argue about the names or the spec a bit, but I
think it is ready to go as-is...

	-- Mark

 ------- original message -------
From: "denis bider \(Bitvise\)" <ietf-ssh2%denisbider.com@localhost>
To: <ietf-ssh%NetBSD.org@localhost>, "Mark D. Baushke" <mdb%juniper.net@localhost>
Subject: Re: draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 for IETF 82 in Taipei ?
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 21:59:04 -0600
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197
X-SBScore: 0 (Spam Threshold: 20) (Block Threshold: 5)

Thank you for bringing this up.

It would be nice if someone did pick it up, to make it final.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark D. Baushke" <mdb%juniper.net@localhost>
To: <ietf-ssh%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 17:02
Subject: draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 for IETF 82 in Taipei ?


Is anyone going to present the draft-dbider-sha2-mac-for-ssh-02 (-03?)
to the IETF 82 in Taipei Taiwa Nov 13-18 as a standards or informational
track RFC?

Given multiple implementations (e.g., OpenSSH 5.9, TTSH 2.58,
WinSSHD) supporting SSH2 MAC algorithms: hmac-sha2-256,
hmac-sha2-256-96, hmac-sha2-512, hmac-sha2-512-96 exist, it would seem
at least an informational RFC is desirable.

-- Mark