IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Openpgp-dt] Design Team meeting notes: 2022-05-13: packet type grammar edition

Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com> Mon, 16 May 2022 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <d.huigens@protonmail.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4991C185B29 for <openpgp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2022 07:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YkKWgOaM9vof for <openpgp-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 May 2022 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-4322.protonmail.ch (mail-4322.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.22]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 759D8C1850E7 for <openpgp-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 May 2022 07:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 14:44:09 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail2; t=1652712252; bh=hr2TCXbwyvg3YEma4Ud/CE2moHPkVD/k1i8rYzzKOow=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To: Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=KCNDkUFCwifX2QbpImrFV/s/UGuCSzO9Ja6Bv05hUPhAVL6mdPkESBpugpiRTCTNU gantaoU4xys9qi5oPPB4BVD9rBYLm06mNpLsGXvbEIZ1wWRZTdubvgAkwtFdmcGIYY ALmgdbI0ZMdwfSDASrJ7ZFO5yJMo/kgxUm1qwKRmO7cWj9WW6FUKMe0UB/ScCmqxmi pQfETHtGWWXxXrnMAqPaBhUPMXidTtMFqMR+NBoD47yUUHyR2d8+mWEDwejhk9qEtm CAtBXEhZgyKeFrYnosaJiYPFWgibYTDFmPHaUin5OniB7+V1YBSovX1Z9KgrwO/dKz xSdRz05Jf5d+g==
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
From: Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com>
Cc: openpgp-dt@ietf.org
Reply-To: Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <Vhe1DcXyFt6V5pGqwuH20dLHZU5sL9Ejy6CFuV526kMkJ6sdiaI0gsyypGxF3fPWxobgd-drjU6efw8SlPe2_0tj1OWpiGO4FBMRx2Q0S_0=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87zgjlf4fo.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <87zgjlf4fo.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Feedback-ID: 2934448:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp-dt/ndSAONVfZmd37mafnyWTwVnoX_E>
Subject: Re: [Openpgp-dt] Design Team meeting notes: 2022-05-13: packet type grammar edition
X-BeenThere: openpgp-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: OpenPGP working group design team <openpgp-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp-dt>, <mailto:openpgp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp-dt>, <mailto:openpgp-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 14:44:20 -0000

Hello,

I started making a MR with my suggestion (of rejecting unparseable
"contentful" packets, but ignoring other unparseable packets), but then
came across some text that already says signatures with unknown
versions must be ignored, added in [!165] (which I either missed or
forgot about).
So - I withdraw my complaint that the spec is unclear on that point :)

Instead, I made a MR with only the first part: [!191]. This is, as such,
meant to be orthogonal to and not conflicting with [!190], which, while
I don't think it's entirely ideal I do certainly agree is better than
not doing anything.

This leaves in the middle what to do with, for example, a key packet
with an unknown version. This could be addressed in a different MR if
desired.

Best,
Daniel


[!165]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/165
[!191]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/191
[!190]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/190

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email