Re: Curve25519/448 key agreement for SSH
Matt Johnston <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:26:57PM +0100, Niels Möller wrote: > denis bider <[email protected]> writes: > > > Overall, though, it seems to be a bikeshed issue - it doesn't really matter either way. > > I'd really like to hear more opinions. Dropbear implements [email protected]. My 2c is to stick with K as an mpint just to avoid unnecessary change/confusion with RFC 4253 (7.2, deriving keys) and 5656. In terms of implementation a fixed 32 byte string would have been simpler, but not worth changing. A small thing, 'k' in draft-josefsson-ssh-curves-01 should probably be upper case? Is it worth keeping the "Verify that client public key length is 32 bytes" (or 56) text of [email protected] ? Cheers, Matt https://git.libssh.org/projects/libssh.git/tree/doc/[email protected]