Re: [openpgp] [internet-drafts@ietf.org] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-10.txt

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.com>
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 358893A0C57 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ihtfp.com
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 e7KtGpb8EMi9 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 359113A0CA4 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55224E203F; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:59:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20515-03; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:59:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id EB374E2040; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:59:34 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ihtfp.com; s=default; t=1599073174; bh=3e2qIjpPyyW66oWYC+4EXcp9VOA5NdLZoerO85II4y0=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:From:To:Cc; b=OzjqUKwgb9RcnbXuze3qGYHj/sTwMfhFGo0JieLIo1Ekckmu4r32Yzwjfs1j8AG7X /9lQSjpbgmvohvDqaHgqoKw+/puSA/HIus0jkNCOcNHXcBUqFROmKvXjC94ftj8EzG 9u+2ob5EKMW/ACFbHySVgecVEA/f7QJQD7Od6TDw=
Received: from 192.168.248.158 (SquirrelMail authenticated user warlord) by mail2.ihtfp.org with HTTP; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:59:34 -0400
Message-ID: <d45099120b229fd6a3d223b4e32c68f5.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2009021446110.850851@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <87pn763mvq.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2009021248000.848176@bofh.nohats.ca> <faf8cb6e433e259dff5f8554fbf4e9eb.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <87r1rkys6m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2009021446110.850851@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:59:34 -0400
From: "Derek Atkins" <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: "Paul Wouters" <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: "Werner Koch" <wk@gnupg.org>, openpgp@ietf.org, "Derek Atkins" <derek@ihtfp.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22-14.fc20
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/DGTzMJu7LYoYRjhUJ9ufF4j0H74>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] [internet-drafts@ietf.org] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-10.txt
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 18:59:47 -0000

Paul,

On Wed, September 2, 2020 2:48 pm, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2020, Werner Koch wrote:
>
>>> I don't know about the former; the latter was mostly consensus.  I
>>> think I
>>
>> The former was proposed a couple of years ago and iirc, I was a major
>> voice against.  Meanwhile, afterh the meltdown of the keyserver network
>> we should bite the bullet an do it like it has always been done in CMS.
>>
>> Better have a dedicated subpacket than having everyone squeezing it into
>> a proprietary notation.
>
> That does not answer my question though.
>
> Was this discussed in the working group? Why was it changed now in this
> revision. The reason I'm asking is because people have said in the past
> that changes were introduced by an author without WG consensus, so I'd
> like to know if these two material changes have seen proper discussion.

Small pedantic nit -- there is no WG, so technically there is no WG
consensus to be had.

Having said that, there was certainly discussion about the "revert to 4880
requirement for a user id packet" change.  I don't recall the other topic.

> Paul

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant