Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v5 to v6?
Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> Tue, 07 February 2023 10:11 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 BEF5BC1516E0 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 02:11:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 (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 syn2qeLym-93 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 02:11:37 -0800 (PST)
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 55ABDC151551 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 02:11:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [176.61.115.103]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fum.andrewg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23C065F428; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 10:11:32 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com; s=andrewg-com; t=1675764692; bh=YoxCs9u5HxhisrQN7++s76m8g1KGZjpINrX6g4MOLYk=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:From; b=hQt1pl+Ie2IxHX26lZnQgX7Q9PpZn0dkbfrQXVxWsyDZVtizt8gBCxKUHdrTwIz6t 6MJqqrnHGM6Cgl5d7vYAwoMx6IJ3wmtrqI8klVR4cP/DVZ3OUKsT5lv7S76tvihaWd HRV9xbzIxipt1BP26eTLNvFywnkrvAaX/NPetOpzPsOb8oIWPTkwMzA7qfAhFiuiVJ Mw4LUAv9UTVuIeApvG7EYgDnQBDEtWcqcUeuyDH4TX8N6PYh1/2S0k5VHFfErsCKHL 2AqjHrDcfFyWptOVYj/JsZU996SrBGDY0VXpVnKTQWIrDm8edIK14BBNsGmOIwmnHL GmeapDeia9c6w==
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
Message-Id: <6FBF1461-11EB-4DCA-A973-5C48C74D747A@andrewg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C370895C-FB74-4566-AE74-556BF7B9496F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.300.101.1.3\))
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 10:11:14 +0000
In-Reply-To: <a9e2d134-fee5-ac4d-7cfb-b83a29552d1c@mtg.de>
Cc: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, Falko Strenzke <falko.strenzke@mtg.de>
To: IETF OpenPGP WG <openpgp@ietf.org>
References: <877cwwnige.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <cc94aced-1f42-3b7e-7359-b6ee25af48fc@mtg.de> <87sffimthq.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <a9e2d134-fee5-ac4d-7cfb-b83a29552d1c@mtg.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.300.101.1.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/SX2DdQPfBNySMidEudlYzkit5Vc>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v5 to v6?
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: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 10:11:42 -0000
On 7 Feb 2023, at 07:05, Falko Strenzke <falko.strenzke@mtg.de> wrote: > > The wording there is different though from what I proposed. For the reserved signature type, there is a section it refers the reader to explaining the reasons. Currently we don't have a section that explains anything about the version conflict, and probably it should remain that way. So we could simply write "20 | yes | reserved. An implementation MUST NOT create any packet with this tag." To say "MUST not interpret a packet with this tag" would probably not be a good idea, though, as it could be interpreted to forbid being (also) compatible to applications that use the AEAD packet. > “MUST NOT create” would also forbid compatibility. A
- [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v5 to… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v… Falko Strenzke
- Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v… Falko Strenzke
- Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v… Andrew Gallagher
- Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v… Daniel Huigens
- Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v… Paul Wouters
- Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v… Daniel Huigens
- Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v… Justus Winter
- Re: [openpgp] Move new Signatures and Keys from v… Aron Wussler
- [openpgp] PKESK and SKESK from v5 to v6 [was: Re:… Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [openpgp] PKESK and SKESK from v5 to v6 [was:… Stephen Farrell