Re: [Sam Hartman] Openpgp comments

David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com> Tue, 19 September 2006 12:55 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GPf80-0000zk-Dg for openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:55:08 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GPf4t-0000ip-35 for openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:51:57 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k8JCJRh7057005; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:19:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id k8JCJRlB057004; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:19:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k8JCJM5I056997 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:19:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com)
Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k8JCJLx25353 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:21 -0400
Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k8JCJGmm022046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:16 -0400
Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k8JCJFYB032081 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:15 -0400
Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id k8JCJE1k032080 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:14 -0400
From: David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com>
To: OpenPGP <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>
Subject: Re: [Sam Hartman] Openpgp comments
Message-ID: <20060919121914.GC30748@jabberwocky.com>
Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>
References: <sjmd59txlnv.fsf@cliodev.pgp.com> <1CF1EBF5-1C5A-4ACE-A489-10ED8D9BD31C@callas.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1CF1EBF5-1C5A-4ACE-A489-10ED8D9BD31C@callas.org>
OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12 (2006-08-05)
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 05:39:14PM -0700, Jon Callas wrote:

> So -- my question for the WG: Is this alright with you? I want to get  
> 2440bis done. I think that answers the perception that SHA-1 isn't  
> good enough, without causing us to do a lot of work. If y'all think  
> this is good, I'll do it in the next few days.

What troubles me is that this is attempting to fix a perceived problem
that isn't really a problem.  Fixing perceived problems is sometimes
harder than fixing real ones.  For example, if the mere use of SHA-1
is the problem, there are also a number of other places where SHA-1 is
hardcoded (which aren't a problem either) that aren't "resolved" by
this.

It will take a very long time (at least a year, if not longer) before
a MDC2 and MDC3 are widely supported, and until then we run the risk
of interoperability problems.  It probably won't be as bad as some of
the interoperability problems in the past as the preferences and
feature flags are more widely implemented now, but it's still a change
with the usual risks of change.

I suggest we at least push back a little bit, and send your excellent
explanation of the issue to the appropriate people at the IESG.  After
that, if they still want a hash upgrade, I will not object.

David