Re: suggestion for new ssh maintenance wg

nisse@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller ) Sun, 31 January 2016 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces-ietf-ssh-owner-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive=lists.ietf.org@NetBSD.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269131B2D81 for <ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:24:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.699
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 sYn3tZM1FIp3 for <ietfarch-secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.NetBSD.org [IPv6:2001:470:a085:999::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D9E31B2D7F for <secsh-tyoxbijeg7-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:24:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 605) id E385585EE8; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:24:35 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org
Received: by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1347) id 979F685EB0; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:24:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3F285F63 for <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 21:34:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at netbsd.org
Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.netbsd.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with ESMTP id 0oVEzeRdPaMj for <ietf-ssh@netbsd.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 21:34:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.netbsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA6E186025 for <ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org>; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 21:34:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8694001E; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:34:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from armitage.lysator.liu.se (armitage.lysator.liu.se [IPv6:2001:6b0:17:f0a0::83]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with SMTP id 69E5B40011; Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:34:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: by armitage.lysator.liu.se (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:34:20 +0100
From: nisse@lysator.liu.se
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: ietf-ssh@NetBSD.org, denis bider <ietf-ssh3@denisbider.com>, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, Curdle Chairs <curdle-chairs@ietf.org>, mdb@juniper.net
Subject: Re: suggestion for new ssh maintenance wg
References: <10640250-2692@skroderider.denisbider.com> <56978B77.8060204@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:34:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <56978B77.8060204@cs.tcd.ie> (Stephen Farrell's message of "Thu, 14 Jan 2016 11:50:15 +0000")
Message-ID: <nn4mdw9ijn.fsf@armitage.lysator.liu.se>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Sender: ietf-ssh-owner@NetBSD.org
List-Id: ietf-ssh.NetBSD.org
Precedence: list

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> writes:

> If you think such an ssh maintenance wg is a bad plan,
> please also do say that and why you think that.

There's definitely some work that needs to be done. I'm not very
familiar with ietf processes, so I'm not sure a new working group would
make it easier to make progress. I guess what's needed is either an
active wg chair, or an active area director, or someone informally
accepting (and being accepted) in a similar role.

> PPS: Note that this could be short-lived wg that never
> needs to meet face-to-face, or maybe it'd not be like that,
> but don't get fussed about having to go to IETF meetings
> to get this work done - if it's maintenance then that may
> well not be needed.

Don't worry about IETF meetings. I felt I was deeply involved during the
work on the ssh rfc:s. And I've never been to a secsh wg meeting, only
on the mailing list. (I've actually been to one ietf meeting in my life,
but the secsh wg didn't meet that time).

>> Extension negotiation for SSH: 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ssh-ext-info

An extension mechanism makes sense to me, but I find most of the
proposed extensions questionable and/or hard to get right.

>> In addition to the above, I very much agree that aes-gcm@openssh.com
>> needs standardization.

I think the single issue that might motivate forming a new wg is how to
properly negotiate the use of aead crypt in ssh. There should be no
difference between aes-gcm (which I'm not very fond of) and
chacha-poly1305.
 
>> Among other things, the erstwhile SSH working group never finalized
>> the SFTP spec due to lack of consensus. We now have two SFTP specs,
>> version 3 implemented by OpenSSH, and version 6 implemented by most
>> everyone else.

I honestly doubt we'll see much progress there, wg or not. It was a bit
too much of second system syndrome. But if some others have the energy
to revive it, I can't object, of course.

Regards,
/Niels

-- 
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.