Re: further pushing ed25519 sshfp

Hi James,
At 07:54 27-04-2014, James Cloos wrote:
>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.

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.

>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".

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