Re: [openpgp] Fingerprint requirements for OpenPGP

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Tue, 12 April 2016 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
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 0AA3A12E1BD for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 GZQZ6xcQJ41G for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [162.247.75.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4FE712E0B2 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 717ABF991; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:13:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 103B220143; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:13:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
In-Reply-To: <sjmbn5e3na2.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
References: <87vb3nslqh.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <sjmbn5e3na2.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+124~gbf604e9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:13:18 -0400
Message-ID: <87twj6pzz5.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/Miu6D0sJzh4oZEjqc6dBv06H4NM>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Fingerprint requirements for OpenPGP
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:13:23 -0000

On Tue 2016-04-12 10:38:29 -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> writes:
>
> [snip]
>> I tend to agree with the discussion elsewhere in this thread that
>> "internal database ID" is *not* the defining use case for the
>> fingerprint, so i'm not including it here.
>>
>> I think there are only two use cases:
>>
>>  a) looking up a particular OpenPGP key in some remote database like a
>>     public keyserver
>>  
>>  b) confirming that a particular key matches some out-of-band
>>     communication
>
> I would argue that (b) is more important than (a).  Your use-case (a)
> sounds more like a DB Handle, so arguably it should be elided because
> you've scoped your specification saying that "internal database ID is
> not the defining use case".   Or are you saying that we have both an
> internal database ID and an external database ID?

yeah, i thought about this and went ahead with an inclusion of (a)
anyway; think we don't need to specify any internal DB handles, but we
do need a way to communicate across external database boundaries.

I concede that if we define the fingerprint for use as an *external* DB
handle, it's entirely likely (and reasonable) for implementers to use it
as an internal DB handle as well, but i don't think we need to specify
it as a target use case.

If we say that use case (a) isn't a motivating use case for the
fingerprint, do we have a story to tell about how an implementation
might retrieve a specific key from an external database?  or do we not
need to tell that story?

     --dkg