Re: SSH keys - draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt

Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.secsh
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:32:50PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 08:49 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
> > >     However, if we also keep the leaf algorithm, we need to specify
> > >     what happens if the leaf algorithm has a value that is different
> > >     from the value embedded in the key blob.
> > 
> > Right, eliminating this redundancy makes things simpler.
> 
> It would, except you can't eliminate it.  The second copy of the
> algorithm name is part of the key data format for _certain public key
> algorithms_, but not necessarily for all of them.
> 

Hm. Are you saying RFC 4716 is broken or only applicable to certain
subset of public key algorithms? In which case would the public key
not follow [RFC4253], Section 6.6:

         string    certificate or public key format identifier
         byte[n]   key/certificate data

I am just trying to understand this.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.