IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] How to re-launch the OpenPGP WG

Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net> Thu, 19 March 2015 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <calestyo@scientia.net>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F2931A8AAF for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 jrDKWy-QgdhR for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw01.dd24.net (mailgw-01.dd24.net [193.46.215.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 957D81A8AAC for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net (mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net [192.168.1.26]) by mailgw01.dd24.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189745FBE6 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:10:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net
Received: from mailgw01.dd24.net ([192.168.1.35]) by mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net (mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net [192.168.1.25]) (amavisd-new, port 10235) with ESMTP id AsTVzr9NX9T0 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:10:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gar-nb-etp06.garching.physik.uni-muenchen.de (unknown [141.84.43.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgw01.dd24.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:10:51 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1426788650.13059.16.camel@scientia.net>
From: Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:10:50 +0100
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1503191359220.3953@multics.mit.edu>
References: <878uf2iehi.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <1426218768.22326.80.camel@scientia.net> <874mppgyez.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <sjm3859nhe1.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <1426564752.18487.35.camel@scientia.net> <5507E916.4040307@sumptuouscapital.com> <1426719900.4249.40.camel@scientia.net> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1503191359220.3953@multics.mit.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="sha-512"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; boundary="=-BFrv9zRWdWywjIbKom8Z"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/NKzbk8FKJo3qvnn7FEeWRsi8A6Q>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] How to re-launch the OpenPGP WG
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:11:07 -0000

On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 14:00 -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: 
> What happens when the policy listed at the policy URL changes?  It seems
> that a local resource would be needed.
Well first, the different signature levels (if they rely on a policy
document, which they effectively do due to their vague definition)
wouldn't help you in such case either.

Second, it's IMHO in the responsibility of the signer to keep the old
policies available, of course it wouldn't be enough for the URL to just
contain the key ID... (it would need at least the valid from / through
dates and probably more values like signing key finger print and more...
or even better a hash on the signature packet).


Cheers,
Chris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email