Hi Jari,
At 03:12 10-04-2014, Jari Arkko wrote:
SSH is obviously important and I am a long-term OpenSSH user myself
:-) And I also happen to believe in timely registration of values in
registries, particularly when there is running code.
I am also an OpenSSH user. :-) I wrote the draft because of the code.
I looked at the draft and it seems fine, ready to move forward. I do
not personally have any knowledge about ED25519 and I cannot say
whether it is something that we should be using in IETF standards.
Stephen seems to think that waiting a bit to get an opinion from the
crypto experts would be useful. What is your opinion on that, SM?
What about others, do you have an opinion? And SM, do you have an
idea how soon we need an answer for the implementations to usefully
employ the allocated number?
The draft is intended as Informational. I would not argue that what
is in the draft is an IETF standard. I suggested to Stephen to start
the Last Call as it would take a month. That does not prevent the
gathering of input from folks who do crypto.
It is usually good to get more opinions from crypto experts. I did
some research before writing the draft to determine whether there
were any concerns. I did not find anything noteworthy.
From a code point request perspective a possible outcome would be to
deny the request. It is a problem when a registry does not reflect
what is used in the wild. I am okay with having disclaimer text in
the draft (I'll defer to Stephen). The code was not included in the
last release (March). Note that I am not one of the person who gets
to decide about code release. I could provide feedback saying, for
example, that there will be a (IETF) decision about the code point
request by end of May.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy