Re: [openpgp] Privacy-preserving Transferable Public Keys
Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Fri, 14 June 2019 05:55 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 1CFF91200B5 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 rM1daopTfn4M for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
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 0513E120018 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 22:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
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=wvVfzeBCmQep5bEFOQfO4F0OUyS2WGAiTLEAceDSOZ4=; b=kUVRxcXGQHcY6mxKA9wTFb7nDt adK/wrv2q5Y2FkJBGLOutRNroZ08kUfbkrF58f5wWSVnK7wQgqSVlNI99C6/3crU70S9mibf9JHXx V+M9Jkcl2GYEXS5dw9PM0ZvCRhLgEkDpykpnpOCb8Lqe0tLA2Bfgi99iLrio6m0Y0yQQ=;
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1hbfB7-0003gL-82 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:55:09 +0200
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.92 #5 (Debian)) id 1hbf7I-0003Sb-O7; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:51:12 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Heiko Stamer <HeikoStamer@gmx.net>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <3LBKVNEMXC3DV.3JS3W5ZE7TFEZ@my.amazin.horse> <82eb1f82-f2a2-a881-2c18-fd9427c882ed@gmx.net>
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: Heiko Stamer <HeikoStamer@gmx.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:51:02 +0200
In-Reply-To: <82eb1f82-f2a2-a881-2c18-fd9427c882ed@gmx.net> (Heiko Stamer's message of "Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:59:22 +0200")
Message-ID: <87a7ekr9yx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=BCCI_morse_National_laboratory_wire_transfer_Fundamentalism_PSAC=Lig"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/QwywTTt4tTza7CbN1UvGepPoo3s>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Privacy-preserving Transferable Public Keys
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: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 05:55:13 -0000
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 23:59, HeikoStamer@gmx.net said: > I'll change that in DKGPG soon, however, to avoid trouble IMHO some kind > of self-signature is still required (e.g. type 0x1f). Right. Most properties of an OpenPGP key are conveyed via self-signatures. Thus for general use they are really important. Derek has a very special use case and that is why the need for a self-signature has been dropped. Almost all other applications still need them. Direct key signatures can of course be used but we do not have much experience with them. I fear that some OpenPGP implementations will not work correctly if only such a direct key self-signature is available. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
- [openpgp] Privacy-preserving Transferable Public … Vincent Breitmoser
- [openpgp] Optional User IDs Neal H. Walfield
- Re: [openpgp] Privacy-preserving Transferable Pub… Heiko Stamer
- Re: [openpgp] Privacy-preserving Transferable Pub… Werner Koch
- Re: [openpgp] Privacy-preserving Transferable Pub… Vincent Breitmoser
- Re: [openpgp] Privacy-preserving Transferable Pub… Werner Koch
- Re: [openpgp] Privacy-preserving Transferable Pub… Vincent Breitmoser