Re: [Ietf-dkim] RFC 8463: DNS textual form underspecified

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On April 14, 2024 1:53:07 AM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso <[e-mail]> wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote in
> <[e-mail]>:
> |On April 14, 2024 12:51:26 AM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso <[e-mail]> \
> |wrote:
> |>Hello.
> |>
> |>Thanks to Hanno Böck (known from ossec and more) i was pointed to
> |>my falsely published ED25519 DKIM key.
> |>Until now that simply was the complete ED25519 public key, just
> |>like for RSA, instead of extracting the actual "bitstring data"
> |>from the standardized ASN.1 container, which starts at offset 16
> |>(or -offset=12 if you use "openssl asn1parse -noout -out -" aka
> |>the binary blob).
> |>
> |>I realize that RFC 8463 says repeatedly that the base64-encoded
> |>representation of an ED25519 key is 44 bytes, and that the
> |>examples go for this.  Still there is no wording that the entire
> |>ASN.1 structure shall be thrown away.
> |
> |At the time we wrote what became RFC 8463, ASN.1 for ED25519 was not \
> |specified yet.  Openssl didn't support ED25119 either.  I'm not sure \
> |what you think we should have put in that we didn't.
> |
> |It seems to me that you are saying that the RFC is correct and clear, \
> |but that you were certain you knew better than the RFC.  That's not \
> |a thing an RFC can fix.
>
>There *is* RFC 8410 to which 8463 refers, around the same time.
>It defines exactly this, no?  It says there are no further
>parameters, but it does not say "hey so you can go and just leave
>that niche container off".
>Sure it is 44 bytes, but the entire thing is 64.
>It is de-facto only the single example in A.2 which reveals the
>total ignorance of ASN.1, and it is about brisbane and football,
>which i cannot glue together (letting aside it is written by an
>american, and who knows what kind of "football" that is?, as
>i seem to know they say "soccer" for what i would think, but it is
>4am so i do not truly think anyhow.  Saturday night all right for
>fighting, ah.)  (OpenSSL in mid 2017, at least a bit.)
>Thus: smart, very smart.  Is always too smart for some.
>Just leave them behind.

I don't see it?  Where is the reference to 8410?

Scott K