Design choice for Bitwarden interface and possible extension to upload ssh config.

[Oaklight]

Hi, Dev team; thank you for bringing this useful tool to us. I've been using this to manage my SSH keys lately. And out of curiosity I dived into the code a bit. Why is the encoded content stored in "Note" instead of "password"? It seems better to be in the password section, and we could leverage the history ability of Bitwarden/Vaultwarden to track the changes made to the SSH key. A possible answer to this design choice is that we won't accidentally click the "regenerate" button to override the encoded content. Please enlighten me if that's not the intention.

Why was I wondering about this? Because after I used ssh-manager, it was natural for me to manage the config files via Vaultwarden (yes, I have several independent configs inside config.d)
I'm doing this manually by first encoding the config into Base64 string, then adding the encoded string into an SSHConfig_xxx item on my Vaultwarden. One of the pain points of storing in the Note section of Bitwarden/Vaultwarden is that we couldn't track the changes we made to the configs. But the software tracks the passwords with its history ability.

We could have a discussion about the design choice and I'm willing to contribute to the config upload and fetch feature if possible.

Cheers,
Oaklight