openssh unix dev - Aug 2015 - Regularising ssh-ed25519

[ posted to comp.security.ssh last month, to no reply ]

I've written an Internet-Draft describing how to use Ed25519 in SSH and
formally allocating the name "ssh-ed25519" for it:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bjh21-ssh-ed25519/

The primary purpose of this is to regularise the use of that name by 
implementations.  I'd like to know what the OpenSSH developers think of 
this draft.  Questions I'm particularly interested in are:

* Is the specification technically correct?

* Is my guess that the first implementation of ssh-ed25519 was in
OpenSSH by Markus Friedl correct?

* Is there a better way to reference the OpenSSH 6.5 release notes?

* Should this be Informational or Standards Track?  An IETF-approved
Informational RFC is the minimum that's required to get an algorithm
name allocated, but if ssh-ed25519 is expected to be the new standard
public-key format, maybe it's worth the effort to put this on the
Standards Track.

Thanks for your attention.

-- 
Ben Harris

> Am 02.08.2015 um 01:10 schrieb Ben Harris <bjh21 at bjh21.me.uk>:
> 
> [ posted to comp.security.ssh last month, to no reply ]
> 
Didn't know it still exists.
> I've written an Internet-Draft describing how to use Ed25519 in SSH and
> formally allocating the name "ssh-ed25519" for it:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bjh21-ssh-ed25519/
> 
> The primary purpose of this is to regularise the use of that name by
implementations.  I'd like to know what the OpenSSH developers think of this
draft.  Questions I'm particularly interested in are:
> 
> * Is the specification technically correct?
yes.
> 
> * Is my guess that the first implementation of ssh-ed25519 was in
> OpenSSH by Markus Friedl correct?
yes, I don't know of any prior implementations.
> 
> * Is there a better way to reference the OpenSSH 6.5 release notes?
I don't think so.

> 
> * Should this be Informational or Standards Track?  An IETF-approved
> Informational RFC is the minimum that's required to get an algorithm
> name allocated, but if ssh-ed25519 is expected to be the new standard
> public-key format, maybe it's worth the effort to put this on the
> Standards Track.
Standards Track would be nice, but I'm also undecided about the effort.

Thanks!
-m


> 
> Thanks for your attention.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Harris
> _______________________________________________
> openssh-unix-dev mailing list
> openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org
> https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev