Re: Request for a code point assignment for ED25519 - draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 10 April 2014 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD741A0242 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 05:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.272
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5byBKnXzDGw5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 05:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BC31A01CB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 05:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.146.71]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3ACF9GY013066 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Apr 2014 05:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1397132121; bh=dmwoByV9cnh/d3UopwWQ8dH5N8qBuTA3CLJlZX4guPM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Y0C55zD5dPh4KMH7d+HZlWd2/hiIJqR2K7rfDvgkJ0cq2weUpro+Jg+ptcxf+TBj0 /FeEFUYJf4lFKdjVl5s6oIQZUK/CIdj2OGhCt340YddO/xjgYSTRS746OL3kR4CEMb nL5EY21S/6e00kSvvGbYBV1r7FO4QJs/fY0KtVZw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1397132121; i=@elandsys.com; bh=dmwoByV9cnh/d3UopwWQ8dH5N8qBuTA3CLJlZX4guPM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=F1JhvV5fgq4gKF68vKhiFAs1tmkJlcOm0VU4nV2IXZgMeRPWNHbN/Mdj3VQYw+qXd DZRJR92+rLw+je89F8AUkTpbDhHEOQ+78KL6wCIehopDcqXYUx6NDlnT+VxGpIs88g DchfiyuYEudylmAoUZH1iAmV+t21wLRnnuqknX4c=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140410034359.0bc89d30@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 05:12:46 -0700
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Request for a code point assignment for ED25519 - draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-01
In-Reply-To: <A5CE78BA-5805-4922-9E1A-A30D3B5AA4CA@piuha.net>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20140408174055.0ceb1810@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140410001913.0bc63b50@resistor.net> <A5CE78BA-5805-4922-9E1A-A30D3B5AA4CA@piuha.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/dkQikOM0EJuH_xOeEyw9DLsqgG8
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:15:29 -0000

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