Re: [openpgp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-02.txt (fwd)

Paul Wouters <> Sun, 28 February 2021 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1DA3A1A24 for <>; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 10:08:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0bogQtxXMhfv for <>; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 10:08:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 199703A1A22 for <>; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 10:08:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DpWb82kh7zCZC; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:08:04 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1614535684; bh=CTEP67AWa92BxLKePQPg7/Jwyysw9x0xxsNXidFcZD0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=f2wGDJD4YU+VtgggPAeLdWFmstVkDmIYq/xJztESioAalzo0r7IXfNpIWrlzIDNan FQ2E8Skps9Di6y2i2o0yzqa8UYnYChahNSQKYlfwvgKh0W3B/jF1FSoGMoYZM5GKvu OBHfHd6P8cuNdAhEjT8jlRrM98pQiNoiMcL8Fsm0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost ( [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SrIxaWHACANT; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:08:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:08:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 96AFB6029B62; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:08:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E25E66B1E; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:08:01 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 13:08:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <>
cc: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=C1ngel?= <>,
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-02.txt (fwd)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 18:08:09 -0000

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:

>> I would prefer to keep single quotes for values referring to single
>> bytes standing by themselves, as rfc4880 did. -00 changed them to
>> double quotes but using single quotes as in C seems better.

I agree with this. It would be better.

> I'm not sure how to address this request without doing some heavy
> lifting in the toolchain, espcially since it looks like you want the
> tooling to behave differently for characters in the two different
> places.

If the single quotes are part of the regular text, wouldn't it just work?

> However, it looks like this is actually a bug in xml2rfc, which wants to
> put two spaces between a period and the next sentence.

Which in itself is pretty archaic and shouldn't be done by default :)
(Althouh the unit fmt command also still defaults to this)

>> crypto-refresh-01/02 nitpicks
>> =====
>> At 1. Introduction, change "RFC 5581 (Camellia cipher)" to "RFC 5581
>> (The Camellia Cipher in OpenPGP)" or "RFC 5581 (Camellia Cipher in
>> OpenPGP)", since just "Camellia cipher" could be confused with the
>> description itself of Camellia (rfc3713).
>> "ECC for OpenPGP" should perhaps be changed to "ECC in OpenPGP" which is the
>> preposition used in that rfc title.
>> Full name of RFC 6637 is "Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) in OpenPGP" and
>> would be the proper one if we wanted to use the complete names of the rfc,
>> albeit I don't think that would matter either way.
> These aren't the full RFC names (4880 itself is not "OpenPGP"), they're
> shorthand labels, but i agree that they should be normalized to be more
> readable.  I submitted the editorial suggestion
> to make
> them "Camellia in OpenPGP" and "Elliptic Curves in OpenPGP".

Seems reasonable. If no one objects over the next few days we will merge
it in.

>> I'm not too keen on the way this section is introduced. I may provide a MR if
>> I can come up with something.
> Please do propose an MR.

Indeed, please do.

Thanks for the review, and thanks to dkg for filing the issues raised to
discuss later in the WG.