Re: [openpgp] Context Parameters for Signing and Encryption

Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com> Wed, 08 February 2023 23:39 UTC

Return-Path: <d.huigens@protonmail.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 5A942C15154C for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:39:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mSJn8hw0Mg6b for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:39:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch (mail-40133.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25011C151549 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:39:50 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 23:39:31 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1675899587; x=1676158787; bh=Pg6rqUVYjXhwp0LBNsU3dPbQ3kQHrELMagpA/1/XbV8=; 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; b=wJfdqcBDaopyI/PFDNcRJOoenPCItFC4EA8cikrW++TkQ6VyQS/TarRkcWCMVi1x3 mTpbGMmtNkUf4g3xDEkRct4/a3YoRgH4eMYxJfVEr4T17vlATN08gjsUcuu9HBf9xf 5igKTYjdAlcElOHRWTd/YncrbwAuc13K+KEcnnTxUrZmir3/QVHz779Nl107ZbUO7Q PCcQCLZJKOHSTcWT4d7tdeXQvRWC8cta1NQSsqQRiOb1WJLmAHrNNSFVthQ2DKmIDG wuDbwmGBIKeIsyPg7HtbjCkSB6IvTat4kPJYNNgllvsWnAkEvDBpAx64Tqo6CxDGbA cMxiYeomghmjQ==
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
From: Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <rFavpu78Mp3oJ2aNs1ec03zLNAEs18L6SjDpuOrvn81IOeOo5UsYoWdCg8MpMLrw5DDu77gxZirdM4_iaGLEoS1svvQddbf_FPUPuL0zM10=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87h6vvlrli.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <87y1pcm3go.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <e739c67e-b1e5-bcd7-9826-fb3a1665cf90@mtg.de> <2AnlS_zlFsz_hMvAwoqjz5n9y1LfNNFy3LQwYBHIcLdoXiCvE65B5GoTBDPDIECmuIOsFJerW4l_0_8VwoGteoUi5C1pn1IhYwqJ2j-oztU=@protonmail.com> <87h6vvlrli.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Feedback-ID: 2934448:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/LrdEtQm3lXgTzzb9x-JsVAhNZck>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Context Parameters for Signing and Encryption
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 08 Feb 2023 23:39:54 -0000

On Wednesday, February 8th, 2023 at 23:28, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I think what you're saying is that a greenfield implementation can
> simply mandate that a particular context be used, and legacy/existing
> systems cannot safely adopt the context parameter.

Indeed a greenfield application / usage of OpenPGP can mandate that a
particular context be used; legacy/existing applications / usages could
also adopt the context parameter, but would indeed need additional
signalling to know whether they can do so. I'm simply saying that we
can declare that signalling out of scope for the OpenPGP spec proper,
and that we can discuss it in the context of each specific application;
and that even if we don't end up doing so, the context parameter will
still be useful for new / greenfield applications.

Best,
Daniel