Re: [openpgp] Proposed Patch to RFC4880bis to reserve two public key numbers

["Derek Atkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

On Thu, July 7, 2016 7:33 am, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi Derek,
>
> On 07/07/16 12:21, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, July 7, 2016 5:23 am, Stephen Farrell wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04780
>
> The discussion of the relative merits of those would be better
> on cfrg. (I don't recall the latter having been posted there
> for example, but I do recall hearing about/seeing it before
> somewhere.)

You brought up a paper showing a weak key/keyset and said there was no
response, I pointed out a response.  I wasn't trying to discuss relative
merits and agree this is not the place to do so.  But you started it ;)

[snip]
>> Note again that it's just reserving the number; it's completely
>> underspecified.
>
> The patch mentioned AE methods explicitly. Allocating codepoints
> for underspecified algorithms would seem pretty odd.

There are other "reserved for.." code points.  And there are other
"underspecified" code points, too.  So there is already precedent.  C.f.
X9.42 (code point 21).
[snip]
> So I've no clue how this WG or the openpgp community regard
> squatting but if codepoints aren't scarce marking some as
> reserved could be an option. (FWIW, I'm not fussed about doing
> such things if codepoints aren't scarce.)

It's an 8-bit field.  There are currently 21 allocated, with #22 in line
for EdDSA, and me asking for 23 and 24.  So still under 10% utilized.  I'm
not sure if you consider this scarce or not.  I don't; I don't expect
there to be a ton of new public key algorithms out there.  Even if we
expect another two dozen in the *next* 30 years, that would still put us
only to 20% utilized.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       [e-mail]             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant