Re: [openpgp] Possible ambiguity in description of regular expressions: [^][]

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Sun, 10 January 2021 18:52 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 CD55E3A11B0 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 10:52:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.306
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.306 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, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.b=bTsJHYq/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.b=Le2ko/ef
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 EoWcWeP4nd6l for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 10:52:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (unknown [162.247.75.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CB433A11AF for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 10:52:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1610304726; h=from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=eu33Xjm+v1FJuiFqCP/YRxqAHAxTJYPU1TW7zZNsZGE=; b=bTsJHYq/UmORFOcXi+H5p/qEi5eLEavekmz5NqGoYfaBrbEwPp7xVbVVTVl4YKNvpra+F DYDpC8IhWdLSAj0Bw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1610304726; h=from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=eu33Xjm+v1FJuiFqCP/YRxqAHAxTJYPU1TW7zZNsZGE=; b=Le2ko/efF+YDfkUq6zkG2y4IYITHvX8sJz4/qWh9e1IFcYV94pDYDg/0N5qdId84CpBOy zJ1NtkAXD0xXSKosqfMrAKyw6yOGXS1PZuG64xU5uY0MzZAEQU5AyZ3rFHbZy/5shwKq1k7 FdtLxhnSC1HMV3YLVG3uetC+p2y8CJf4U7jNcSItp1H0VmnQCVwGUHkIu7dtLUOm9tpcyhM okmucECZq+2MeuPJb7NgjevLRHzBdhU4jGUREJax6dcQicGAR+tjalDQIsAZ1+NojDjFd9T ymDi6HIy0x5DgwmlckuvSop9qw9yay3zkvj8l0PPot5SBK8eSVkMSi41raag==
Received: from fifthhorseman.net (unknown [64.234.56.87]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C3657F9A5; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 13:52:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DB46420391; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:08:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: Ángel <angel@16bits.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <b8bc0722114cb6367e8d9172b10a6d6df0c3c146.camel@16bits.net>
References: <87r1nguquq.wl-neal@walfield.org> <87tusbuwzp.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87mtxzv7mr.wl-neal@walfield.org> <877dor8kl1.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87456fad-06cd-6605-b5d1-ea5ac49c9ee4@andrewg.com> <a061d617a22416638bf1fb0a1f7d66b7495f9b82.camel@16bits.net> <b7a318d1-b6d0-e71e-28fe-197923185a38@andrewg.com> <7ff8e6cc238ac6f9680e1b3fc32dc7bbff7239c0.camel@16bits.net> <87lfd25is6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <b8bc0722114cb6367e8d9172b10a6d6df0c3c146.camel@16bits.net>
Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEXEK/AhYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAr/gSROcn+6m8ijTN0DV9AahoHGafy52RRkhCZVwxhEe0K0Rh bmllbCBLYWhuIEdpbGxtb3IgPGRrZ0BmaWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldD6ImQQTFggAQQIbAQULCQgH AgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAIZARYhBMS8Lds4zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5Hw3BQkFpJWB AAoJEPIGkReQOOXGDYEA/j0ERjPxDleKMZ2LDcWc/3o5cLFwAVzBKQHppu0Be5IWAP0aeTnyEqlp RTE7M8zugwkhYeUYfYu0BjecDUMnYz6iDLgzBF3kewUWCSsGAQQB2kcPAQEHQK1IuW0GZmcrs2mx CYMl8IHse0tMF8cP7eBNXevrlx2ZiPUEGBYIACYCGwIWIQTEvC3bOMzpZIXr6cLyBpEXkDjlxgUC XeR7TwUJAiGl/gCBdiAEGRYIAB0WIQQsv6x2UaqQJzY+dXHEDyVUMvKBDwUCXeR7BQAKCRDEDyVU MvKBD7KmAQCHs+7588C4jto6fMje0Nu97zzoppjJM7lrGF2rVnbHvwD+MgmGUbHzPSUrTWnZBQDi /QM595bxNrBA4N1CiXhs2AMJEPIGkReQOOXGpp0BAM7YeBnt/UNvxJAGm4DidSfHU7RDMWe6Tgux HrH21cDkAQC9leNFXJsQ7F2ZniRPHa8CkictcQEKPL8VCWpfe8LbArg4BF3ke5wSCisGAQQBl1UB BQEBB0Cf+EiAXtntQMf51xpqb6uZ5O0eCLAZtkg0SXHjA1JlEwMBCAeIfgQYFggAJhYhBMS8Lds4 zOlkhevpwvIGkReQOOXGBQJd5HucAhsMBQkCIaVkAAoJEPIGkReQOOXGdYcBANYnW7VyL2CncKH1 iO4Zr0IwfdIv6rai1PUHL98pVi3cAP9tMh85CKGDa0Xi/fptQH41meollLW5tLb/bEWMuUNuBQ==
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 09:08:37 -0500
Message-ID: <87im846g0q.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/QVRZyxffdikuEi5zrkKP1ltqI3I>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Possible ambiguity in description of regular expressions: [^][]
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: Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:52:10 -0000

On Sat 2021-01-09 23:49:36 +0100, Ángel wrote:
> Realistically, there are some things that can only be achieved with
> "structured User ID", and rfc4480bis should probably have some more
> focus on that.

Given our charter, i'm not convinced that any of this (including my
merge request, mentioned above) is in scope for the intended
cryptographic refresh of RFC 4880, so i dont think it belongs ultimately
in rfc4880bis.

> Are you thinking on a separate RFC or as an amendment that could be
> combined later into the same document?

I think this would be a separate draft, which the WG isn't currently
chartered to adopt.  Assuming that we can effectively complete the
cryptographic refresh, though, it seems reasonable to think that the WG
would recharter to adopt and publish clarifications/improvements like
this one.

      --dkg