Re: Updated RSA SHA-2 draft / New draft: SSH Extension Negotiation

> The "ssh-" prefix specifies the encoding to use for keys and signatures.

The current RSA SHA-2 draft defines signature algorithm names separate from public key format. I believe this is important: it allows for seamless upgrade of existing RSA host and user keys to use the new signature methods. If we do not allow for this seamless upgrade, adoption of SHA-2 for host and user authentication will be delayed.

You assert that the "ssh-" prefix is necessary to convey a hint about the encoding. To me, this appears to be an arbitrary interpretation. I personally do not see this as relevant.

But if this was relevant, the names in the current draft still meet your criteria:

- The name of the public key format, which is the SSH-specific key format, continues to be "ssh-rsa". This indulges the idea that an "ssh-" prefix should be used if the format is SSH-specific.

- The signature algorithm names are "rsa-sha2-256" and "rsa-sha2-512". The signature encodings just contain the RSA signature blob, which is defined in RFC 3447. This is not SSH-specific.

Note that, besides a different name, the signature encoding is identical to this, defined in RFC 6187 for the key format "x509v3-rsa2048-sha256":
     string  "rsa2048-sha256"
     string  rsa_signature_blob
Notice how this does not have an "ssh-" prefix.


> And even if it were a small mistake, we should
> strive to keep naming consistent.

There has to be a reason for decisions beyond just consistency. Consistency must have a benefit, which it often does; but I do not see that benefit here.

What I see are disadvantages:

- We have to deal with a less practical, less readable name everywhere.
- The prefixed name would not disambiguate this algorithm from anything.
- The prefixed name would not even be consistent with RFC 6187.
- People frown on us for having deliberately chosen, for ourselves and for everyone, a less practical name.

The name we choose right now will be with us and our users for years to come. The non-prefixed choice is one I would very much prefer to see - and is the one that I think is more sensible.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality


----- Original Message -----
From: Niels "Möller" 
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 12:42
To: denis bider 
Cc: Peter Gutmann ; [email protected] ; Jeffrey Hutzelman ; Mark D. Baushke ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Max Horn 
Subject: Re: Updated RSA SHA-2 draft / New draft: SSH Extension Negotiation

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.