Re: Curve25519/448 key agreement for SSH
Simon Josefsson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Matt Johnston <[email protected]> writes: > 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. Agreed. > A small thing, 'k' in draft-josefsson-ssh-curves-01 should > probably be upper case? Yep, fixed. > Is it worth keeping the "Verify that client public key length is 32 > bytes" (or 56) > text of [email protected] ? I added it. /Simon
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 472 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWTN/tAAoJEIYLf7sy+BGdJwYIAJiqxDO8GSAUt5Gd351nc4LL 2qxKb8bHh0RDxgPT8J7+HlTsdabns4/O5B0QD2yY8SpTSzC5c/mbZ63QjJlGrVe/ DV/v02mQij/r16nNk0mpSu6pIGWKUZDULw8cnc6OoHnFLCEHhSJyxKpOMipy3i+S Ym2aIBFf5OuHt09YEpABSDpc0yAOVhnCfK2HdA9bVma4IAoOUwoQHJ4odWH8qNWW Z5/3qbT0G0jFS4I/S0hkrYoomQAVYM9AHy5k7Frs2o9y3QGgUungTBMUfE1o2MKT LBVZL/DueUz8pXrGUIIgwncCNuwQvPQknEukBcVtDaD5++l4rzZYKrIMFgg6D1w= =5/FI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----