Re: [secdir] [Cfrg] Time to recharter CFRG as a working group? Was: Re: ISE seeks help with some crypto drafts

[Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]>]

Peter Gutmann writes:
> Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> >The standard should not be “bug compatible with the dominant
> >implementation” 
> 
> Just an additional note to this, the standard currently literally is "bug
> compatible with the dominant implementation".  If you implement SSH as per the
> core RFCs, sticking to all the MUSTs and whatnot, it won't talk to OpenSSH,
> which means it de facto won't work.
> 
> Also, expanding on Denis' comment about the PROTOOCOL doc:
> 
>   Note that OpenSSH's sftp and sftp-server implement revision 3 of the SSH
>   filexfer protocol described in:
> 
>   https://www.openssh.com/txt/draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-02.txt
> 
>   Newer versions of the draft will not be supported, though some features
>   are individually implemented as extensions described below.
> 
> I don't know if much, or even anything, supports any of draft-ietf-secsh-
> filexfer-03.txt through to draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-13.txt.  So the standard
> in this case is "use a 17-year-old expired draft, but not any newer version of
> the same document".

Secsh WG was active between 1997-2006. The filexfer-02 was published
in 2001 and final filexfer-13 was published in 2006, i.e., the -13
version is what the working group was working on. My understanding was
that the issue was that openssh did not want to implement what was
specified in the working group because of the issues with trademarks,
personalities and things not at all relevant to the actual protocol
development or IETF work. Those things practically killed the group
and there was not that much work ongoing after that.

This does not mean that IETF working groups do not work, it just mean
that one group did fail.

In the IPsec we had similar situation where we did finish the base
specifications closed up the working at 2005. Created a new working
group IPsecME (IP Security Maintenance and Extensions) in 2008 to
create place for working extensions and fixes for IPsec protocol
suite. We have rechartered several times since, every time checking
out our current set of extensions proposed for us and taken those
which had enough interest.

So I do not think that forming working group raises the bar too high,
or makes things too difficult, the issues with secsh was (and I think
is) not related to IETF processes.

Jan  9  2001 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-00.txt
Mar  5  2001 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-01.txt
Nov 21  2001 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-02.txt
Oct 17  2002 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-03.txt
Dec 20  2002 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-04.txt
Feb 12  2004 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-05.txt
Oct 27  2004 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-06.txt
Mar 25  2005 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-07.txt
Apr  6  2005 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-08.txt
Jun 13  2005 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-09.txt
Oct  6  2005 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-10.txt
Jan 18  2006 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-11.txt
Jan 26  2006 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-12.txt
Jul 18  2006 draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-13.txt
-- 
[e-mail]