IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] AS2+OpenPGP protocol extension review request

Ben McGinnes <ben@adversary.org> Fri, 15 February 2019 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@adversary.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 A3361131026 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:11:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 OmZPRdi_iMna for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:11:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from devious.adversary.org (ec2-52-29-175-128.eu-central-1.compute.amazonaws.com [52.29.175.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD8B13100F for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:11:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from adversary.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by devious.adversary.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3406648482; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 20:11:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 07:11:35 +1100
From: Ben McGinnes <ben@adversary.org>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: "openpgp@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>, "cryptography@metzdowd.com" <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Message-ID: <20190215201135.tgy6xrlm6mggy7ud@adversary.org>
References: <20190212040914.23kkncp2fptccwp6@adversary.org> <1549954014509.38591@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <20190214062303.jlokrdgqduptteyp@adversary.org> <1550200739858.62111@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hq7fbfqto5kwfrmm"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1550200739858.62111@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
OpenPGP: "id=DB4724E6FA4286C92B4E55C4321E4E2373590E5D; url=http://www.adversary.org/ben-key.asc; preference=signencrypt"
Codes-of-Conduct-policy: "url=https://gitlab.com/Hasimir/project-participation-policy"
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/SuUVGQ5e5eCjMYYca5ns7uFoZD0>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] AS2+OpenPGP protocol extension review request
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, 15 Feb 2019 20:11:40 -0000

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:19:08AM +0000, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Ben McGinnes <ben@adversary.org> writes:
> 
> >Ah, oops; well there's a good reason to drop initialisms and acronyms from
> >draft #3.
> 
> Yeah, I think both AS2 and MLS, which someone else pointed out, have
> such a long history of use in the security community that it'd be
> better to look for non-conflicting terms.

Indeed; and as a Pythonista I am reminded of the second line in the
Zen of Python, “Explicit is better than implicit.”

That certainly applies here.

Now, if that and a final decision on key sharing within the protocol's
scope are the only real issues here, I'll be very happy (and somewhat
amazed with myself).

I'd rather be sure, though, so if you could find the time for a bit of
a closer look, I'd greatly appreciate it.  No doubt eventual end users
would appreciate it more, albeit without the concious recognition of
that (in most cases).


Regards,
Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email