Re: Updated RSA SHA-2 draft / New draft: SSH Extension Negotiation
[email protected] (Niels Möller)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
denis bider <[email protected]> writes: > The "ecdsa-sha2-..." algorithm names (RFC 5656) do not use the "ssh-" prefix. > > Neither do the new formats in RFC 6187, i.e. "x509v3-rsa2048-sha256" > and "x509v3-ecdsa-sha2-...". > > In my opinion, the "ssh-" prefix is superfluous. The context of SSH is > implied by where the names are used. The "ssh-" prefix specifies the encoding to use for keys and signatures. My understanding is that for ecdsa- and x509v3-, the encoding is specified by appropiate other standards. While for ssh-rsa and ssh-dss, the encoding is ssh-specific: It is specified in the ssh transport protocol (RFC 4253), and include strings like "ssh-rsa" as part of the encoding. I belive the new rsa-sha2-256 algorithm name ought to also have an "ssh-" prefix, because the format is equally ssh specific. > I think the use of "ssh-" prefixes for all kinds of names was a > (small) mistake in the original design. I disagree. And even if it were a small mistake, we should strive to keep naming consistent. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.