IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] v5 interoperability

Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> Wed, 03 April 2024 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <andrewg@andrewg.com>
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 3D942C14F682 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 02:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=andrewg.com
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 M0HSTtf3CepZ for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 02:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fum.andrewg.com (fum.andrewg.com [IPv6:2a01:4f9:c011:23ad::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 637CFC1654EF for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 02:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com; s=andrewg-com; t=1712137230; bh=zhx/zOw8MC3rlrMLHvGk9FWVeGH42zQmXAKiWM1fPM4=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=Psbdh3nS++UtQbYzt+bl1BJ9biPe85f2uPSq6QoqlNSOlX6jfstgmO4imfWgUc/Em +j0+tuzhIpGDD20YlUBoRx++egt92Sp83lU/AYjt2xqak1oEsdlNKh6e4xfejv6hQZ nIA1YzSabruzLI+WO2/QUqfIillY6ICU2IitSh9tmOuekeC5SxAx5wwb+wpTPEC/LD 8uJAazlvsSZkzi2ZbPaBTOMrZbP8nb6llxBwwji8CKFlarKSEAwbtVKzZpLO6MsY0i 3sGd0/3rqPYqQVHWkjp7TZGAnJh8FFn7+4wlAAY7d8SaeyhPlisoz2Odg5eO36vbVn xBNMPO01dyAUg==
Received: from smtpclient.apple (serenity [IPv6:fc93:5820:7349:eda2:99a7::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by fum.andrewg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 290ED5DC4C; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:40:30 +0000 (UTC)
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
Message-Id: <B756ABD1-7036-4D40-BE89-8BCE940CA133@andrewg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AC7D70B0-57D9-49AC-B954-4EA8569D2E57"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6.1.1\))
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:40:12 +0100
In-Reply-To: <2OonUbUZ9iR9hDOxXli1u20qpPYokvk2XJ5-7O6XNryRr02pfydpgMFcyfwzYGb2NgmsD-H9cqvIc2CpW8CQlHu2i-E3Dqsts4ch1ECvs_A=@protonmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg=40andrewg.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF OpenPGP WG <openpgp@ietf.org>
To: Daniel Huigens <d.huigens=40protonmail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <EAE8D81F-05F6-4551-8878-80555709A4EF@andrewg.com> <2OonUbUZ9iR9hDOxXli1u20qpPYokvk2XJ5-7O6XNryRr02pfydpgMFcyfwzYGb2NgmsD-H9cqvIc2CpW8CQlHu2i-E3Dqsts4ch1ECvs_A=@protonmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/RbhSyzlxgJaeISDXIYH_ITCbJQ4>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] v5 interoperability
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 09:40:41 -0000

On 3 Apr 2024, at 10:33, Daniel Huigens <d.huigens=40protonmail.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> So practically speaking I would say, librepgp keys can be treated as
> being orthogonal/parallel to crypto refresh keys, but to detect whether
> something is a librepgp key, I guess you have to check whether any of
> the key packets are v5, not just the primary key packet.

But can I serve such a v5-subpacket key indiscriminately, and trust that non-librepgp clients will silently ignore the subkey, or do I have to strip it myself before serving it, in case a client will treat the v5 subkey as invalidating the primary?

A

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email