Using Ed25519 in SSHFP Resource Records
draft-moonesamy-sshfp-ed25519-02
Yes
(Stephen Farrell)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-09-17)
Unknown
Thank you for writing and pushing through this document. It is high time that it gets out as an RFC.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-09-15)
Unknown
A problem was discussed in detail through the SecDir review and I don't see an update in the draft to reflect that discussion. It would be good to understand how to make this interoperable - "there is not enough information in the draft to know what goes into the hash that is the subject of the code point assignment.". If Stephen's okay with not having that included, since the draft is a code point assignment, I won't argue it, but would like to know if the sentence will be added as listed in response to the SecDir review to state that it isn't specified anywhere: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04831.html > That's a fair point. I propose adding the following text in Section 2 > as a warning to the reader: > > The format of the ED25519 public key with SHA-256 fingerprint is > not documented in an authoritative specification.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-01-29)
Unknown
I'm still not super pleased that we're assigning a code point without a spec for how to use this algorithm in SSH. But I've convinced myself that the design space is constrained enough here that a developer could probably figure things out. If this does end up getting used, we should come back and make sure it's clear.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown