[openpgp] rfc4880bis and draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Tue, 23 October 2018 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E84130EE1 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gnupg.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8cY5mqFsu2kE for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (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 A124F130E1A for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnupg.org; s=20181017; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:cc:Subject:To:From: Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=XBV4XqM4a37Xxeedy+vQsu0HWK+pVxvZjSfYvYp9ovU=; b=V06IHfhx5iHBV67MtRBVWmVVrH 8e7rMHZTyUCnH3AHreNB3WRyE+AK4Vxl/sMYyY989x6RISubMlktW9WUc7WkRTOfrnxo6Xro1y10a gZwoqRFIoZ1Dlft1ekxg7wyMAGAyxqr6vFM0lkQP9W9GY8t26XMBLbrAJTvBQvtmw6aE=;
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1gEze9-0002BE-5f for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 18:35:09 +0200
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1gEzdb-0002bd-1x; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 18:34:35 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
cc: ronald.tse@ribose.com
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: openpgp@ietf.org, ronald.tse@ribose.com
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 18:34:29 +0200
Message-ID: <87y3aosju2.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=bullion_ARPA_Sundevil_AIMSX_AIEWS_Attorney_General_computer_terroris"; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/2zt2rV8lUafYsD7YuDoe3KNuGlE>
Subject: [openpgp] rfc4880bis and draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 23 Oct 2018 16:35:14 -0000


The recently expired draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01 specifies
one of the goals of the WG to make the assignment of new identifier etc
easier.  I am not sure whether this drafts can be integrated into
RFC-4880bis but the IANA Considerations section in RFC-4880bis needs
anyway a rework because the demanded registries are existent and only
need to list new items. 

I am not sure how to do this.  For example RFC-4880 reads

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
  10.1.  New String-to-Key Specifier Types

   OpenPGP S2K specifiers contain a mechanism for new algorithms to turn
   a string into a key.  This specification creates a registry of S2K
   specifier types.  The registry includes the S2K type, the name of the
   S2K, and a reference to the defining specification.  The initial
   values for this registry can be found in Section 3.7.1.  Adding a new
   S2K specifier MUST be done through the IETF CONSENSUS method, as
   described in [RFC2434].
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

What I did until now was to replace RFC REVIEW (aka IETF CONSENSUS) by
SPECIFICATION REQUIRED and to reference RFC-8126.  See the gitlab
repo. The draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01 has this text

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
  5.1.  PGP String-to-Key (S2K) Registry

   Proposed changes to the registry:

   o  Rename the registry to "OpenPGP String-to-Key (S2K) Algorithms"

   o  Change registry policy to *Specification Required*.

   o  Update its "Reference" to also refer to this document.

   o  A Standards Track document is required to register an S2K
      algorithm with the value "Yes" in any recommendation.

   Add the following note:

   Note: Experts are to verify that the proposed registration
   provides a publicly-available standard that can be implemented
   in an interoperable way, with notable benefits for the wider
   OpenPGP community.

   Update the following registrations:

   | ID      | S2K Type           | REC-S | REC-I | Reference          |
   | 0       | Simple S2K         | No    | Yes   | Section of |
   |         |                    |       |       | [RFC4880]          |
   | 1       | Salted S2K         | No    | Yes   | Section of |
   |         |                    |       |       | [RFC4880]          |
   | 2       | Reserved           |       |       | Section 3.7.1 of   |
   |         |                    |       |       | [RFC4880]          |
   | 3       | Iterated and       | Yes   | Yes   | Section of |
   |         | Salted S2K         |       |       | [RFC4880]          |
   | 4-99    | Unassigned         |       |       |                    |
   | 100-110 | Private or         |       |       | Section 3.7.1 of   |
   |         | Experimental Use   |       |       | [RFC4880]          |
   | 111-255 | Unassigned         |       |       |                    |
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

I doubt that it is advisable to merge this into RFC-4880bis because this
is a request for one time action of the IANA.  However a request to
change from IETF REVIEW to SPECIFICATION REQUIRED is an actual action we
like to see and that should go into a new RFCs.

Any hints on how to proceed?



Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.