IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] To bind or not to bind

Bart Butler <bart+ietf@pm.me> Tue, 26 March 2024 15:08 UTC

Return-Path: <bart+ietf@pm.me>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF385C14F6B3 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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=pm.me
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 1YLyCABH8r1N for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:08:09 -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 B009CC14F602 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pm.me; s=protonmail3; t=1711465687; x=1711724887; bh=OTEtj4m6a8ExUAbAJCiSCouahSpiw5ecA5Nr5Ut0v6c=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=IwsaGEJMr5OvrPxGiGKFQY3kFF46uYmsJWVI8TD620LfOdKjyIkJIDdi1ZQ/dGvaM bbZgQoMeirwA7MNxN1Bdqpd5mnXYmZ9rnuJokAYf1sgzxSMkLsY4MSmRy730C/MQcF ktWSxAj1sr63rLkDyERsqi1pTJBazim4i1EtsuElSOrcS5X+o+hQUZzegu2BtBF2tH pSP2ZnxPO2xZpQFhMmovzX3Kl3WO8syaKoQfjk4vIPTHvSSVhxKXLFIDCtsbJ9ans3 +QqDoQdvklMEwhMyRxk47QEKhCdUZtq46Cspr4x+5qtNSE0zVVQWdd9Jp26GXZ/qed y+S+OJhMZYiMA==
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:08:02 +0000
To: Nickolay Olshevsky <o.nickolay@gmail.com>
From: Bart Butler <bart+ietf@pm.me>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <5R4SO06l_M0vVtwGsq_H9tDnDhVkMzTKTh6Pj7zFCBuVhZQutu5WNmEGU1tqeA4SYMtq_b2baLO0Nq0i5aG0UUnQ9LJ_j5zD4aYyl3Ieb-Y=@pm.me>
In-Reply-To: <29000b02-32a7-49df-bd10-511afba772ee@gmail.com>
References: <EGivTgyfjNm_TAvhds1OPA2c0O6LP9lFnkwWHHKLJY8ReJOgtDh3tnYsCSR8yrrBLbpeehtUgIJEhynae8L3daRimNiGO7BAb3cVvC66q-4=@wussler.it> <87a5mqi0xi.fsf@europ.lan> <WKKpi2FW6r9Pftm6kgrVNtXvOXa2U9kz9R0wqlGYuPDl9nRkrcvVM3a2cfviolf1XN83lhPh2KxfzXb2A6d8HeQ4qdKYNd8LlqbtC1cRgCM=@wussler.it> <mUg-9v4FTMUYeDGa3AimMKuJI7Zy5ycxfEpfHN64enr0BP85qK6-Pt3lcgD-VzUfNLBMy2DLha7k_cmP8YXu2c_yMj68sVsPecwOpsiRItA=@wussler.it> <874jcwikie.fsf@europ.lan> <82300a06-fd34-47f5-a3db-26b99d87794e@kuix.de> <4a7b954a-2e84-440f-9f3c-7fd1e4ebd697@gmail.com> <871q7zj35y.fsf@europ.lan> <29000b02-32a7-49df-bd10-511afba772ee@gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 5683226:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; boundary="------331a890197d57edfed0fbe6a752ca513840bc68ec196399a52d80388eaea5130"; charset="utf-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/2uVr8NU_TVEpRaP0N-U4iqUAjBA>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] To bind or not to bind
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:08:14 -0000

Defaults, however, are powerful, and I agree with Justus think it makes more sense for the default to be forward permissive than the reverse. If you wanted to include an optional RESTRICTIVE flag you still could without any decrease in flexibility. That said, excess flexibility has been in many instances OpenPGP's Achilles heel historically.

-Bart


On Tuesday, March 26th, 2024 at 2:03 PM, Nickolay Olshevsky <o.nickolay@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 

> On 24.03.2024 13:10, Justus Winter wrote:
> 

> > Sorry, the point I was trying to make (with a pinch of humor) was that
> > 

> > if your library is not forward-compatible unless the downstream consumer
> > opts in, your library is not forward-compatible.  Please make your
> > library forward-compatible.
> 

> This is simply wrong given that option RNP_LOAD_SAVE_PERMISSIVE is a perfect instrument for a library user to make it forward-compatible if desired.
> 

> It's always good to to give users a choice instead of dictating behaviour and limiting in options.
> 

> --
>   Best regards,
>   Nickolay Olshevsky
>   o.nickolay@gmail.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email