[openpgp] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gallagher-email-invisible-signatures-00.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 06 May 2025 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 571DB2561605 for <openpgp@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2025 06:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=sandelman.ca
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 D9dTOfRa_pcc for <openpgp@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2025 06:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37DCF2560F1A for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 May 2025 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=dyas header.b=bQur2UD7; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [212.221.20.114]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A0F51F4A3; Tue, 6 May 2025 13:54:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1140FAD37C; Tue, 6 May 2025 14:54:11 +0100 (BST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1746539651; bh=16cYxsmDhbVjXGDsw2C+tMGjhWWo/HFxJ1wOBy1/Sag=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=bQur2UD7Dp2bridaU2/UOZtFwd5AKwx8EDqf8jKdwwUV8Niso8PvRl0U3OjljapyZ BSfdPDIunVoGyy9nrCX0Bji+4igM5U4A3fcbbVVMxWGKPL/8S89JfKDkUnn0X8nFKj 6eNg2T+T8O7Ro4ltoWriEhKKd7q2ittatza8ZGbpkgYLowXe0ffXQMEO7Wu2X+MfBQ 6yGuBh+3Z48J30QGpR3cAC9RYJuoV9RDZtwUoGW+t3CaPI/z4Foa+aVWZDLgs9glRT eFdzk0e4uQuU9AHkgGd20nNJk0OZqrnxVfltTKvJUzxqFmgKDuwGJboM4FnUnxZNXZ NlpLhUzr17TbQ==
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
In-reply-to: <87bjs6hpl5.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <174626909298.338737.10420965667394729319@dt-datatracker-58d4498dbd-6gzjf> <5E01CE52-2B15-48BA-BCEE-4E7FAB7FBD02@andrewg.com> <966942.1746301560@dyas> <87bjs6hpl5.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> message dated "Mon, 05 May 2025 14:36:38 -0400."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 06 May 2025 14:54:11 +0100
Message-ID: <1209166.1746539651@dyas>
Message-ID-Hash: 2ONCKPYONQIFBAWWIDHFXQWF6J3Z5NTU
X-Message-ID-Hash: 2ONCKPYONQIFBAWWIDHFXQWF6J3Z5NTU
X-MailFrom: mcr@sandelman.ca
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: IETF OpenPGP WG <openpgp@ietf.org>, OpenPGP-based Email Encryption <openpgp-email@enigmail.net>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [openpgp] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gallagher-email-invisible-signatures-00.txt
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/IYFHaYk_gimZiF0ifAGOi10QiAM>
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>

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
    > On Sat 2025-05-03 15:46:00 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Instead of including the signature as an attachment, we propose that
    >>> the signature is contained within a novel MIME header in the
    >>> top-level MIME part. The principal advantage of this is that naive
    >>> MUAs should silently ignore unknown MIME-part headers, which
    >>> addresses the “unknown attachment” UX problem when using traditional
    >>> PGP/MIME.
    >>
    >> okay, I like the idea of fixing the UX problem.  I'm not sure how
    >> popular the solution will be, I'm totally willing to try.
    >>
    >> Let's adopt this if we can.

    > It looks to me like you're asking for working group adoption, Michael.

I didn't exactly mean that when I wrote the above, so much as I meant, I want do it :-)

I don't think we'll get much traction without an RFC, so implicit was, yeah,
that OPENPGP should adopt it as working group document.

    > There's not much in this draft that touches on the OpenPGP framing at
    > all; pretty much the only use it makes of the wire format is to expect
    > implementations to be able to:

Yes. But I think it's in our charter to progress the work.

    > Given this, i'm inclined to say that this belongs more in a
    > mail-oriented WG, not in the OpenPGP WG.  Perhaps that's MAILMAINT or
    > LAMPS.

Ask MAILMAINT to review, do a co-WG WGLC, but I think remain in this WG.
It's really not a LAMPS thing, I think.
If this works, maybe SMIME (CMS) will want to do the same.

    > At any rate, if we can't decide on a reasonable venue up front, i'd be
    > happy to shop this around at SECDISPATCH in this summer's IETF,
    > particularly if we have a couple implementations that can demonstrate
    > interoperable signing and verification.

Yes, running code good.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*