IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Clarification re subkey binding sigs?

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 29 May 2023 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 5AEB1C151555 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2023 06:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.094 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 7Q-Judgp6aAO for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 May 2023 06:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::85]) (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 09B24C151540 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 May 2023 06:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4QVGXG4LlFz3BZ; Mon, 29 May 2023 15:26:54 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1685366814; bh=5rpj2mJ/ZjdshCQo5NlJevBxK2j/CM1RIsZRkZO55z0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=XgiQFnT93NVNyEL51mHzhhA1zsuHsddAYeRaFxGhDC+iINLRPJd1yzuPI0RAX1fYg Ns/4f7QejuQIZMTnvkLJgjTkQ8UXiuzDiDX4wRPRVzZ5We/x8pZGbleRZDRyfFjz2z +hPeXpXlFzvIDIOkXiYr9NTnR1xAKNDJm6KgZxXc=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QrLhm0NdMvKr; Mon, 29 May 2023 15:26:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 29 May 2023 15:26:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 97C4AFF62C1; Mon, 29 May 2023 09:26:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94ABDFF62C0; Mon, 29 May 2023 09:26:52 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 09:26:52 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
cc: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>, IETF OpenPGP WG <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <87sfbth1qc.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Message-ID: <525afdac-d6f5-9db0-90f5-646ee0386649@nohats.ca>
References: <EC32FB38-DD71-4DE1-8E9D-70E5D3DD2E9D@andrewg.com> <87sfbth1qc.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/OXYRhg4iV-eR9ETi6mhz9sQjXuA>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Clarification re subkey binding sigs?
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: Mon, 29 May 2023 13:27:01 -0000

On Thu, 18 May 2023, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:

> I think the textual changes you're suggesting below are simple
> clarifications of text that is already present in the draft, and make no
> substantive changes.
>
> That said, this kind of editorial cleanup and clarification is useful!
>
> On Mon 2023-05-15 17:36:28 +0100, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
>> It might also be advisable to explicitly state that v6 keys MUST only ever make v6 signatures in any context.
>
> I've tried to make your recommended changes here, tagged with the
> "non-substantive" label:
>
>   https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/310
>
> They didn't come out exactly the way you worded them, but i hope they
> get the same clarification across.
>
> Please comment over there if you approve or disapprove!

There were some approvements and no disapprovements, so this is now
merged.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email