Subject: further pushing ed25519 sshfp

From: James Cloos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:54:46 -0400

Can we get an early assignment for algo 4 for ed25519?

We have the draft, software which wants to use it, and nothing competing
for algo 4.  An early assignment should not be controversial.

As to the other question, a draft to un-reserve digest type 0 instead to
be "raw" would eliminate the issue of whether 256 bit keys should use a
256 bit digest.  Admins could decide for themselves.

Using 0 for raw is natural; "the null-digest" akin to "the null-cipher".

-JimC
--
James Cloos <[email-masked]>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:39:45 -0400

> Using 0 for raw is natural; "the null-digest" akin to "the null-cipher".

The registry is IETF consensus which means IESG needs to approve document before IANA allocation. 
The SOP is that the requesting document says something like this in the IANA considerations
"Value 4 suggested/requested".
IANA in my experience honors most of these requests. 
Given the allocation history of the registry and the fact there is no other draft that is trying to make an
allocation this should happen anyway. 

	Olafur

---

From: James Cloos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:14:33 -0400

>>>>> "OG" == Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]> writes:

OG> The registry is IETF consensus which means IESG needs to approve
OG> document before IANA allocation.

OG> The SOP is that the requesting document says something like this in
OG> the IANA considerations "Value 4 suggested/requested".

There have been early registrations recently (eg, tlsa).

And some software authors seem to be waiting for the registration before
deploying.

-JimC

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:49:50 -0700

Hi James,
>for algo 4.  An early assignment should not be controversial.

I raised the question of the assignment at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87189.html 
There were replies from Jari Arkko and Stephen Farrell at:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87222.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87220.html

The CFRG meeting is tomorrow ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg04448.html 
).  It should be possible to have an answer within a day or two.

>Using 0 for raw is natural; "the null-digest" akin to "the null-cipher".

I mentioned that I will be writing a draft a SSHFP issue which was 
raised during the discussions.  I'll include the above as part of the 
(future) discussion.  I need to cover over the IETF RFCs again to see 
what needs to be done.  I am focusing on the assignment first as it 
should be possible to get an IESG decision by end of May.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:44:22 +0100

FYI, based on last night's (in my TZ;-) CFRG session I'll
be starting an IETF LC for SM's draft. Be great to get any
comments on that if you have 'em

Ta,
S.

On 28/04/14 17:49, S Moonesamy wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg87189.html There
> were replies from Jari Arkko and Stephen Farrell at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg04448.html ).  It
> should be possible to have an answer within a day or two.
>

---

From: James Cloos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:14:08 -0400

>>>>> "SF" == Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> writes:

SF> FYI, based on last night's (in my TZ;-) CFRG session I'll be
SF> starting an IETF LC for SM's draft.

Cool.

SF> Be great to get any comments on that if you have 'em

There isn't much to say; it looks complete and concise.

-JimC