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

"Derek Atkins" <derek@ihtfp.com> Thu, 07 July 2016 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.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 461B812D75D for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 05:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ihtfp.com
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 4b-lFPg3w9jN for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 05:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1D3912D688 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 05:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E92EE2030; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:33:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15239-01; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:33:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id C6939E2040; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:33:45 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ihtfp.com; s=default; t=1467894825; bh=OzuhVmS6Ck63kp/7AlHzeAfMnR6VYQpLb5DTkeVEYm8=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:From:To:Cc; b=n6EHMeWzezKjN5RxOgEDlAKqvBMHK1QhKCN1ThzsclhRWPd34IMRO3XgDLxsAAlhz HwmQsh18p5JK5qDQvY2RSgrD3VW+xUzG9yzEkeZ0Mdnuv7II1z7e9ESpGxpTulGedl wtLZ3cey+GLfP26rCMvLl7tVV/T7QyWDG/jkIP2M=
Received: from 192.168.248.159 (SquirrelMail authenticated user warlord) by mail2.ihtfp.org with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:33:45 -0400
Message-ID: <a769ee258e4b87132b960be45bfe6d27.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
In-Reply-To: <577E3E02.2000408@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <sjmfuuoymp8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <sjmr3b6pceb.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <87vb0iotil.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <577E1F99.9050000@cs.tcd.ie> <ebf6638c5749b3d4b6a971f2191f67d5.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <577E3E02.2000408@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:33:45 -0400
From: "Derek Atkins" <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22-14.fc20
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/WWNpLR9blQVgXWCYlHDsRODt55s>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org, Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Proposed Patch to RFC4880bis to reserve two public key numbers
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 12:34:22 -0000

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
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant