IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Clarifiction on v5 signatures

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Fri, 26 October 2018 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.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 27EC412872C for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 06:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gnupg.org
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 tNiTcl2aiENG for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 06:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (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 9C7101286E3 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 06:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnupg.org; s=20181017; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=qyzXnQfNh0qKmCuLd+GTiT+dIBcXSfh+9XnXCETbyms=; b=g+B/09lNnBDSATo0EL2RXK3Bek QXpa9gQ6zOlKsewXrslG9rpBcj7gtc+cGhB+vfTTmuFzF2fxl3nzAnfjRLTDLtCojsBXRat5V74RQ c7QyqZOHv5so/XXrIk9U5VMaOXbHMcRUsTTCiC1v0A9qe8jHaN0CTQiDSj3DMjjaBCJM=;
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1gG1xF-0005G3-9H for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:15:09 +0200
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1gG1w4-0005az-0Y; Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:13:56 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <wiktor=40metacode.biz@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <877ei9szyc.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <dda2d47e-b06e-cd6c-9bab-d8f30149c2ad@gmx.net> <87mur2nyt6.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <f2770475-3b73-3849-33cf-91aaf52c1999@metacode.biz> <87tvlam1iz.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <d9ece307-8153-24ce-2de4-07792e3c1ffb@metacode.biz> <87lg6lm2w8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <486d2345-69c1-c329-d887-f164b5dc90d4@metacode.biz>
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <wiktor=40metacode.biz@dmarc.ietf.org>, openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 15:13:55 +0200
In-Reply-To: <486d2345-69c1-c329-d887-f164b5dc90d4@metacode.biz> (Wiktor Kwapisiewicz's message of "Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:19:34 +0200")
Message-ID: <8736ssn94c.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=Albania_nitrate_Soviet_Albright_brigand_South_Africa_ASIO_broadside="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/FjjexBlmetuwO3IiZH0bhCX3-Uk>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Clarifiction on v5 signatures
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: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:15:13 -0000

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:19, wiktor=40metacode.biz@dmarc.ietf.org said:

> (I assume changing GnuPG behavior to align with OpenKeychain is not
> possible due to backwards-compatibility issues?).

AFAIK, OpenKeychain encrypts to all non-expired subkeys.  I think this a
bit to course of an action.  For example if a subkey has been created
with future timestamp to help with key rollover.  Thus the idea to
explicitly mark suitable subkeys.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email