IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Thu, 08 November 2018 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
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 0D12C130DCC for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 17:26:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (3072-bit key) header.d=crustytoothpaste.net
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 8VWHBWd4-xW6 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 17:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from injection.crustytoothpaste.net (injection.crustytoothpaste.net [192.241.140.119]) (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 C4F911286E7 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2018 17:26:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from genre.crustytoothpaste.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:b978:101:941b:b2ff:ecfe:7f28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by injection.crustytoothpaste.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EA476077B; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 01:26:04 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crustytoothpaste.net; s=default; t=1541640364; bh=qCyVMyhaTVi6jumqU52poLRXMNoLHoVOypj+aXhb2HE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Date:To:CC: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=rFkQ995/hDPjNHDuBlmRg+v2sXlza3zk/qMteraFV9o13B0QNmeQgKYJdpPW7Aw2x Y6O4mTYOineHPPR9EPGkrDsMrc8XA6ddJSjnOd3Xqk8QIKdwHsxhz3dnhR3hRq/C86 qQ0wRCgZsA4weda0JaPmIQYJJ3aHbXWvcJYAxd2y7sYcD341CwSEP3BMyekpAS0KOP qtjBwzHa7OVECTtCNFiYGYc8729KsG9i0A75Fi/Kk1MmBM6wTDXrPF9i0NtH76xThQ gPUcH8IWTtcoIW3DFtwPsQ+jbIKC/4sIAPN1P2u7O8xb3g+opB/LerDQnrQD8ejM6P 1mKrIRNnNAEKTUhYRnbGmolfc1h59leZ/GMC/LTu7jb8dKvaIeNfff3hWLrdeHTIyz kSmW4QYjQGsLKn0m4rqLkD0MxLovp6KdDZEDPtx79yjZQMWujchQldHdb02zFkTui1 yB1Qvl0JfTsgG7zCDXa3IB+2qFmYpL0mF2Uqoz7Mwe8BG6Wfi7z
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 01:25:59 +0000
From: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
To: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org, Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
Message-ID: <20181108012559.GF890086@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>
References: <23523.16831.292658.490356@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aPdhxNJGSeOG9wFI"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <23523.16831.292658.490356@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
X-Machine: Running on genre using GNU/Linux on x86_64 (Linux kernel 4.18.0-2-amd64)
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 127.0.1.1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/8Gi1wLqiUq03iu8f8y1qAYjO_bA>
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: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 01:26:08 -0000

On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:49:19PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 4. The lowercasing of the email address is contrary to the Internet
>    mail specifications, where case-sensitivity of the email address
>    is up to the mail domain in question.  If the email address were
>    not obfuscated by hashing it would be easy for the webserver to
>    handle case-sensitivity by URL remapping.

I definitely agree that lowercasing the address is wrong.  The RFCs say
that the local part is case sensitive, and there are many case-sensitive
systems on the Internet today.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email