IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] OpenPGP Web Key Directory I-D

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Sat, 10 November 2018 10:15 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
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 1A2101294D0 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 02:15:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gnupg.org
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 YkOUTKWhj9C2 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 02:15:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 197E5130DBE for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 02:15:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnupg.org; s=20181017; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=uk1sfk+kYFL7/tgdEBofJuxBvNWEFYXv3Eaw4G5DktI=; b=GYN6FItUSBjbqxw9rdU9mWL0jz TO4WVfxvgp+RcO/CqyjwHuTr0LeXYCq7lZ5Z7ZYhiomvP7hhelh7KGQzTQ4qntMk0poGIpUNNoczX 78QLZXvwKJdd6vfntiFUMROgpjMQ4a1/N8fmYq/Xl38U4OCSgQ3HRUozwhjpj7HPpDoM=;
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1gLQIH-0000Qw-8N for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:15:09 +0100
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1gLQGQ-0001p8-8U; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:13:14 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, openpgp@ietf.org
References: <23523.16831.292658.490356@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <874lcsyr3p.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <23525.26229.995360.750323@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <87r2fuv6sh.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20181110050050.GS65098@kduck.kaduk.org>
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:13:08 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20181110050050.GS65098@kduck.kaduk.org> (Benjamin Kaduk's message of "Fri, 9 Nov 2018 23:00:50 -0600")
Message-ID: <87lg61tf4b.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=jihad_BROMURE_Exon_Shell_ISEC_BLU-97_A/B_Vince_Foster_.400_million_i"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/NSauFY4EdPnGN6tuhZ96Yoi75FQ>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] OpenPGP Web Key Directory I-D
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 10:15:13 -0000

On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 06:00, kaduk@mit.edu said:

> I feel some obligation to push back on this -- if there is no willingness
> to deviate from the deployed implementation, why not just document the
> existing implementation behavior as part of the implementation's

Simply because there are deployed services which required quite some
in-person discussion.  Telling them that they need to replace it by
something new is not a convincing argeument for running a web key
directory.

Sure over time it can eventually be removed.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email