IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] v5 in the crypto-refresh draft

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 06 June 2021 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 0B5083A1EC1 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 6RPo0cYt18eq for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44C8A3A1EBC for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FygSF3RzDzFHk; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:30:37 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1622993437; bh=hXMKakM6VbTRYIDA1WpEG6ogXd4KtM1HHCMVxouaAJ8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=qT2X1MNqCB/UE4L5DXVSgCb4huAPSh8OQ1ct1y614YRrOCprSvjUtR+fQqU/ceujR uperboEYucr07b8rezrnTa5SJIk8j2V1ctsZhHsgsL5eC+Y6jwfIuGwuRy84oVua6a 8Fl5wX5LZYH6XlMWAOgLdwVSxp13kJ8mbl2gEftw=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FyzuyWzUxJEF; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:30:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 17:30:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 49FAC7E041; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:30:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BC37E040; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:30:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 11:30:35 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
cc: "openpgp@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <SY4PR01MB625176F5D00B0F5F5DE6474DEE399@SY4PR01MB6251.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <d8b9cd22-ded3-4ef3-94c1-7d3ac162b06a@nohats.ca>
References: <SY4PR01MB625176F5D00B0F5F5DE6474DEE399@SY4PR01MB6251.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/Y8y_OKLBGfj2KmSFZQHz0Sb2F2g>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] v5 in the crypto-refresh draft
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: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 15:30:46 -0000

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021, Peter Gutmann wrote:

>> If folks really want to re-litigate it,
>
> Oh, I don't want to re-do the whole debate but was more thinking that the
> draft should provide a rationale for why -1 was dropped in favour of -256,
> both to explain to implementers and users who aren't on the mailing list what
> properties are and aren't required for fingerprints, and to provide guidance
> in the future when it's decided to move off -256 to something else.

We are happy to accept such proposed text, please send it to the list :)

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email