[openpgp] Re: IETF 122 reportback (please confirm minutes)

Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com> Thu, 20 March 2025 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <d.huigens@protonmail.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: openpgp@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5B1F9FEFB; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 05:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R1tKYFzaw5N6; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 05:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-40134.protonmail.ch (mail-40134.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.134]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59A96F9FEF6; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 05:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1742473592; x=1742732792; bh=W9G30TnK4k/EkQP0bT/yAGaf0aBszhRud6B8PJUCTrc=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector:List-Unsubscribe:List-Unsubscribe-Post; b=pFupBBwGHUpk5feNEBDLY4rmlAtNbjdYxF6gFS1m3KMtN2bltw5hrdjHPWJJ563AF Lxu6pkc8m6y8nlTS4V5IgPZOmuxd6E3JfhQH/RvMCiQyM8nOzcFLl6GgsEIF5BDHqQ Wgh4CDDe2qFv0Rg15kgLpi4f6I70bcgAuqWFeyyIBJ+rp4HyN7VURQALAE0i4uEZSj /Mh0uKuzbBWnfTcfwm7nJj101qWC8KU+V1vF4oIbr5xTMACosdZvCbLLiG37EVxCXy GjXTqt2Wkf+ZaoUHr3BigSL8g8aBwoJj+GsuoKEd3dF6ODq+gma/qGMGczaJDLrr/a epEL6ICSJt87w==
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:26:28 +0000
To: openpgp-chairs@ietf.org
From: Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <Awea0QquAvmg_DC212Th--g8NFBF-ZYAU6C7OfWOKJvy0lp8Zpbg3Bw4tOZuHRQTSGw-hUW72W8PoLsqByn2NoBDecHIw7-2XGRWTdtjmlY=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87cyect2fw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <87cyect2fw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Feedback-ID: 2934448:user:proton
X-Pm-Message-ID: 7c24d5795eb5e6363d23df82f2e069f5c8fa644e
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: J7KXOEMD2E76PWCARL33H7VF4FAQFPZL
X-Message-ID-Hash: J7KXOEMD2E76PWCARL33H7VF4FAQFPZL
X-MailFrom: d.huigens@protonmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-openpgp.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [openpgp] Re: IETF 122 reportback (please confirm minutes)
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/Cmp4BzKJO7upjeLnJSpqN4IZGcw>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:openpgp-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:openpgp-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:openpgp-leave@ietf.org>

Hi dkg & all,

I made some edits / corrections to the minutes at
https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-122-openpgp synchronously /
after you copy pasted them but before I saw this email.

Most were just clarifications of what was said in the meeting, but I
also have to note a correction to something I said in the meeting that
was wrong, namely that there's an HKDF step in the symmetric encryption
of session keys. I confused myself as there's an HKDF in various other
places in RFC9580, but there isn't one here.

I also don't think it's necessary as the AEAD mode is bound to the key
material in an encrypted private key, and I also don't think there's a
significant risk of reaching the maximum number of encryptions per key
(2^32 for GCM is the lowest, but even that is a lot).

But, let me know if anyone disagrees or thinks there should be an HKDF
step there. I'll also think a bit more about whether the above could
be a concern in some cases.

In any case, apologies for the confusion!

Best,
Daniel


On Thursday, March 20th, 2025 at 17:35, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:

> Hey OpenPGP folks--
> 
> We just completed the IETF 122 OpenPGP WG meeting.
> 
> Thanks to Phillip Hallam-Baker and Benson Muite for taking notes.
> 
> Thanks to all the speakers, including Justus Winter, Falko Strenzke,
> Daniel Huigens, and Andrew Gallagher.
> 
> The notes are now recorded at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-openpgp-202503200800/
> 
> Please review, and let us know at openpgp-chairs@ietf.org if you want to
> suggest edits or clarifications to the minutes.
> 
> --dkg
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list -- openpgp@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to openpgp-leave@ietf.org