IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v5 to v6?

Justus Winter <justus@sequoia-pgp.org> Wed, 15 February 2023 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <justus@sequoia-pgp.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 2428CC1526FF for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 04:37:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.693
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=sequoia-pgp.org
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 W8RGdWY_Imxk for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 04:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harrington.uberspace.de (harrington.uberspace.de [185.26.156.85]) (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 78EA2C14EB17 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 04:37:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 21326 invoked by uid 500); 15 Feb 2023 12:37:42 -0000
Authentication-Results: harrington.uberspace.de; auth=pass (plain)
From: Justus Winter <justus@sequoia-pgp.org>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <877cwqlqj5.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <877cwwnige.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <877cwqlqj5.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 13:37:40 +0100
Message-ID: <87cz6b9ka3.fsf@europ.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Rspamd-Bar: -
X-Rspamd-Report: MIME_GOOD(-0.2) SIGNED_PGP(-2) SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1) BAYES_HAM(-0.606063)
X-Rspamd-Score: -1.806063
Received: from unknown (HELO unkown) (::1) by harrington.uberspace.de (Haraka/3.0.1) with ESMTPSA; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 13:37:41 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sequoia-pgp.org; s=uberspace; h=from; bh=ibRt5bf3nkbJo9mJq0GHPdxw0hXjdMseVVaR7PQY4LM=; b=KgRN2mHuTmp/udd94yqjRJgbrXZV2o8yCHeY629tj/OXJCyxf+EKZ9GpMW0a/GMvRH0PSk6vE5 +t7BR8D30KFNpm/0uGesbc/NNT+EOlduS7ykuKzfydJStUtY9r8GSviKXDdqORF8LdwvZi2xklTw UQ3UmxI2P3tjReqUfSep4ZEmEgaBnGEa7uAl3hfnjS1GtlVfRn8rEnT8hjnv8o772QG15z8n8IuA uVUfpf6pr4DyB3bpubDB7BLVCqBeplyoKXuecJx7Lv5nECnuy7uB43rsKry0064oqqIMN+cemJXs D9gMd6v4LkpxhkroNIr+Bh1ef3Gbv8gJLFK1fMj2GDi1mAzrJfkiZ8MHs3zOI+p9E9CZrPEuac64 WAzWMD+0tgUtXFRzjou71hF46ADbLnFDR9EMnYbUjDq0FzRjGTCnMySb5MkbXjYgbdP7oRL89eMk 9BQrXRnsg0SxQuPi9fxJA+QsTGjvCatsILUCuBnJDwfoc+TYfHpdGgOCbEfymeF5mZZC5t+rxRT/ k5bKhS67m0XlWLAzQz1uvN+mKJHgiiFYKyp/kjHGnlCpRdZ2sfiHZ7vTJQXO+F6Co7zE6abHT83s lBTUT3AHLVifqaseflcyerDXKv+kyeZZ1nAO6Qsm+3/1XuCFlNruFRoe8Fz7PTXUcFb5lYHBV50q g=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/A5x8iwbcmDHjUVPKu5BM41buFZQ>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v5 to v6?
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: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:37:50 -0000

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> writes:

> On Sun 2023-02-05 12:13:53 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> Question to the WG: should the new key and signature formats change
>> codepoint designations from v5 to v6?
>
> In the discussion at today's interim, the sense of the participants in
> the room was that this move is the right thing to do.  In addition,
> the move from 0x9a to 0x9b seemed to be appropriate.
>
> Furthermore, participants encouraged moving the new variants of PKESK and
> SKESK from v5 to v6 as well for this draft, to make it easier to observe
> "v6" behavior.
>
> I've agreed to offer an additional MR on top of !231 that handles the
> PKESK/SKESK move as well, but that's not prepared yet.  If someone else
> wants to offer that specific change and point to it in this thread, i
> would not object.
>
> Please give feedback about this decision on this thread here, even if
> it's simple feedback!

I support the move to v6 keys, signatures, one-pass-signatures, PKESKs
and SKESKs.  I support changing the synthetic header for hashing as
well.

Best,
Justus

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status