Re: [netconf] question regarding key naming

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Thu, 09 July 2020 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D813A0C1A for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SlJsA9C-qeAH for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DEFD3A0C16 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050096.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 069EngWc030470; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 15:50:26 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=Ezukf7SqfLai5bhvrjNKdXXUzW6Y2XO2ZgTAQLI0Jhc=; b=GzvhVhHKLw5r12kF+rN6XicVktPBKxPi3rKLnuyOYElcqILS+0cLXY4rIq4Jnzx7NSBA B6++i+lSjAzSenp2vAShLQpQn2rtXxcVNw302DxnQP8Lc9THRf+t2KYxWi5Q30oXlnYK 05/UvDW6cV8SdkM9sqafrhep1O/XvpyRx98TZrm1i4AMvE+hUmXof+SzFb9oQKYMO/+b FBNzLYEy18MSaZ1qqEXUouAwqvTRwxyTf0555RwszgkcH1bGmLuzMuemriFFiDX7vv6Y qJR/3Vyuof29hnHvBUc+rdJiDPlNXNjYitAtdAq/1Lw1guwcurVRbLpmlqmDB282ANNF eA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 (a72-247-45-32.deploy.static.akamaitechnologies.com [72.247.45.32] (may be forged)) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 325k20u5ss-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 15:50:26 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 069Eaep5023190; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:50:07 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.117]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 325k4wewnj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 09 Jul 2020 10:50:07 -0400
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.121) by ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.165.121) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 09:50:06 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.121]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.165.121]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 09:50:06 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] question regarding key naming
Thread-Index: AQHWVfrSGKcexYJyFEW86XIjvzdQ/aj/ofGAgAAEh4D//77MgA==
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:50:06 +0000
Message-ID: <619A9842-6A74-4058-9C62-D133A7EBA2F1@akamai.com>
References: <01000173313a1282-63366836-4a52-453a-a111-fd3334b2506e-000000@email.amazonses.com> <0100017333ea7297-2838a6f2-40ad-4ca5-a83a-23d3014bef92-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20200709142715.6a3wqdeht2ipiryl@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <01000173340803ac-47ae5791-0b76-479d-8be2-b8904ca48535-000000@email.amazonses.com>
In-Reply-To: <01000173340803ac-47ae5791-0b76-479d-8be2-b8904ca48535-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.38.20061401
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.116.48]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_619A98426A7440589C62D133A7EBA2F1akamaicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-09_08:2020-07-09, 2020-07-09 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007090104
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-09_08:2020-07-09, 2020-07-09 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007090111
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/vl5tpMqreAWTw9dRYuR1YicthFQ>
Subject: Re: [netconf] question regarding key naming
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 14:51:30 -0000

  *   “Raw” is not a bad option.   Semantically, the difference to “cleartext” seems very small.   Length isn’t a huge-issue either, being a programmatic API.  Maybe one is preferred from a historical-use perspective?  (Rich, maybe you can comment here?)

I think informed folks won’t care about raw/cleartext.  But I think newer folks will appreciate “cleartext” better.  FWIW, to me a “raw” key is one that stands alone, as opposed to a public key embedded in an X509 certificate.

HTH.