Re: [openpgp] Virtual interim moved to early February 2023 (new poll)

Hi all,

Thank you for organizing this meeting.

Unfortunately, I can't promise I will be able to attend this date, as I will have very poor connectivity until Feb 19th.

I'll prepare here a recap of the issues that I raised on the list (and turned into PRs) that are still open, with some comments about them:

- [!216] fixes a reference, and is just cosmetic.

- [!219] binds the salt size to the signature hash. I know it's time to get things done rather than proposing changes, but this will bite us back if we'd like to introduce it later with PQ. I agree with Justus that an octet size is indeed important there if we want to have it variable, and this is not present in the current format.

- [!222] introduces a non-revoking "superseded-by" signature. I really care about this one, and I think it's a great way forward to tackle v4/v5 migration. I know DKG is not the biggest fan of fingerprints, but it would directly address [!64].

- [!223] removes the padding for v5 ECDH, since a checksum is already included in the wrapping. This was born out of curiosity when asking why is that checksum needed on the list. I tried implementing it, and don't think it's necessary. It adds non-trivial complexity to the code because of version handling, and we'll survive encrypting one block of AES too much.

- [!224] fixes repeated bytes in the test vectors. If you decode the armoured ciphertext below you'll see that this is just a mistake.

Looking forward to get this crypto-refresh out!

Cheers,
Aron

And for the very creative links:
[!64] https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/64
[!216] https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/216
[!219] https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/219
[!222] https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/222
[!223] https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/223
[!224] https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/224

--
Aron Wussler
Sent with ProtonMail, OpenPGP key 0x7E6761563EFE3930

------- Original Message -------
On Monday, January 16th, 2023 at 22:15, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:

> Hey folks--
> 

> On Mon 2023-01-16 09:49:54 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> 

> > Thursday, Jan 19th at 14:00 UTC
> 

> 

> I take it back. This proposed interim is far too close to "now" to be
> fair to folks who are looking for an event formally scheduled well in
> advance.
> 

> This is my own fault for falling behind on following up for the poll
> during the holidays.
> 

> If we want a virtual interim, we should have a set date at least two
> weeks in advance, so i am setting up another poll for the first full
> week of February. Stephen or I will report the conclusion of the poll
> by the end of Friday, this week (Jan 20th), so please respond as soon as
> possible.
> 

> https://framadate.org/8TXl8RWamaLeAWD6
> 

> Apologies for the whiplash,
> 

> --dkg
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> openpgp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp

Re: [openpgp] Virtual interim moved to early February 2023 (new poll)

Attachment: signature.asc