Note that the PIV approach used in the OP does not support RSA4096, while the OpenPGP approach does (since Yubikeys support RSA4096 in OpenPGP mode but not in PIV mode).
Note that the PIV approach used in the OP does not support RSA4096, while the OpenPGP approach does (since Yubikeys support RSA4096 in OpenPGP mode but not in PIV mode).
That carries over for SSH: in the most strict touch-mode, a separate touch is required for each authentication attempt. This requirement holds true even if you were to forward your SSH agent to the remote host: SSHing from there to another system would require another physical touch.
(not sure about the SSH agent forwarding as I haven't tested that, would be surprised if it worked without a physical touch)
Basically I don't see the differences you describe in day to day usage at all.
Disclaimer: I work on Solo key, we’re thinking to what’s the best way to support ssh.
What's much more important for me is the underlying capabilities -- a key which supports rsa4096 is great, a key which supports curve25519 in some fashion would be incredible.
Definitely curious for making it work like this. The last time I looked at it, I could make it require touch/PIN the first time the GPG key was used, but after it got loaded into gpg-agent, it continued to work for the lifetime of the agent w/o PIN/touch. That said, I'm entirely willing to admit the possibility I missed the right flags to do what I wanted.
I do like n =/= 1 in general (I've provisioned some yubikeys where the person using the key doesn't have the admin PIN, and so I like to give myself a bit more buffer before I have to meet up with them to unlock the key, but for my own keys, n == 3 would be totally fine.