Re: [openpgp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-02.txt (fwd)

"Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org> Mon, 01 March 2021 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <neal@walfield.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 80C4E3A1A83 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 03:38:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jeTK9mmxYRWX for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 03:38:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.dasr.de (mail.dasr.de [217.69.77.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B1193A1A7F for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 03:38:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p5de92c26.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.233.44.38] helo=forster.huenfield.org) by mail.dasr.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <neal@walfield.org>) id 1lGgsj-0007WX-Ge; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 11:38:33 +0000
Received: from grit.huenfield.org ([192.168.20.9] helo=grit.walfield.org) by forster.huenfield.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <neal@walfield.org>) id 1lGgsj-0000mI-1F; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 12:38:33 +0100
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 12:38:32 +0100
Message-ID: <877dmraytj.wl-neal@walfield.org>
From: "Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Cc: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <87pn0mcecf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <7d8bdda1-4e5c-6c10-f3cd-1d191fad595c@nohats.ca> <87im6faw06.wl-neal@walfield.org> <87pn0mcecf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Goj=F2?=) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/26 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.20.9
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: neal@walfield.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on forster.huenfield.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/AmFb537QcXsqUBURXgnbuI3hU84>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-02.txt (fwd)
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: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 11:38:49 -0000

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 05:41:04 +0100,
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Hi Neal--
> 
> Thanks for the nit-picks.  Two concerns:
> 
> On Fri 2021-02-26 12:50:17 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > -- 20 octets representing a recipient encryption subkey or a master key fingerprint, identifying the key material that is needed for the decryption.
> > -  For version 5 keys the 20 leftmost octets of the fingerprint are used.
> > +- [ ] 20 octets representing a recipient encryption subkey or a primary key fingerprint identifying the key material that is needed for decryption
> > +  (for version 5 keys the 20 leftmost octets of the fingerprint are used).

I don't know how that crept it.

> what does the [ ] you've inserted here mean?  It looks like a markdown
> todo-list "checkbox", maybe it was inserted by mistake?
> 
> > -    09 k0 k1 ... k31 c0 c1 05 05 05 05 05
> > +    09 k0 k1 ... k31 C0 C1 05 05 05 05 05
> >  
> > -The octets c0 and c1 above denote the checksum.
> > +The octets C0 and C1 above denote the checksum.
> 
> This seems like a mistake.  C0 and C1 could be specific hexadecimal
> octets (decimal 12), whereas "c0" and "c1" here are intended to be
> placeholders for the checksum.  This is a bit confusing, maybe it would
> be better to use s0 and s1 (s for "sum") so that it's clear that it
> isn't hex?

Good points!  I think using s0 and s1 is the best suggestion so far.