IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] OpenPGP Web Key Directory I-D

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Fri, 09 November 2018 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
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 E89F5130DFF for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 05:45:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MsZqtWe_EzDB for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 05:45:11 -0800 (PST)
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 75E4D130DFB for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 05:45:11 -0800 (PST)
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:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc: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:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=21YhP+u241dcQMGiBKOd2aCo2S6LI7wsHBfGKppFfCo=; b=bWx7J3T9xKhvoMa5TbO0GvlgA7 q2Nst89nt3gnZ0Og+s4Aq7lPMKab+UNTlGfI8HJz8gpyrIHf55e2mIku2/+slPLGCoMA88YJgEo66 5ncXnNfQ5qYQBJFaCGHxGcYlTq97dv0JxczuUDf8TnXgzRO4trGKZduhckTMWBYacZ3A=;
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1gL75x-00050l-Lz for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 14:45:09 +0100
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1gL72n-00089l-16; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 14:41:53 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <wiktor@metacode.biz>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <23523.16831.292658.490356@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <874lcsyr3p.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <23525.26229.995360.750323@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <87r2fuv6sh.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <50990b61-ddff-93c7-ca96-ff864d1f4d79@metacode.biz>
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <wiktor@metacode.biz>, openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 14:41:52 +0100
In-Reply-To: <50990b61-ddff-93c7-ca96-ff864d1f4d79@metacode.biz> (Wiktor Kwapisiewicz's message of "Fri, 9 Nov 2018 12:37:07 +0100")
Message-ID: <878t22v04f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=Fortezza_class_struggle_FBI_Ansar_al-Islam_Zachawi_FIPS140_DRM_Belkn"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/6IfUxGRzJbszMP61M3lajZmIZtU>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] OpenPGP Web Key Directory I-D
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: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 13:45:13 -0000

On Fri,  9 Nov 2018 12:37, wiktor@metacode.biz said:

> If I'd be designing such a protocol now I'd probably overlay it on top
> of WebFinger (RFC 7033) but currently the benefits would not
> counter-balance added work for everyone involved.

I actually looked into WebFinger but figured that there is no need to
employ yet another protocol format (JSON) and possible require special
handling on the server side.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email