Re: [openpgp] [RFC4880bis PATCH] WIP: bind wire format representations to specific pubkey algorithms

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Sun, 06 June 2021 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
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 C77DF3A1E40 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.b=8rcps7UR; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.b=vx4wZf0/
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 CPNxl4CFYguw for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [IPv6:2001:470:1:116::7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 639583A1E3E for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1622992348; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=hPw1yuuJkeXjxl8S7Fm8WMXTj0eDymie3euGbseUqB8=; b=8rcps7URJYvhTo8TvMOobzD3oCpiaioHh5vq9mzexYdsHY07aJNxBtvUpCFB3Jn02DT5J Ur3DXtxzwFyY45QAw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1622992348; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=hPw1yuuJkeXjxl8S7Fm8WMXTj0eDymie3euGbseUqB8=; b=vx4wZf0/a+bf/mqptkb084ezhEXbVa+TaEGOvv17NzdwVzfdRbMu6M3wdLEthh35/HDE/ rPWNw8GmcijCdYeT3gpltj5AITZeb0CPmQTajxHb8KKZ8z3pJXrzsbOtJFJMaCvj87qMqui iRs0x4zdHgo8+sTIQ0A91A7tgbZO3TnOlo/S1x5ut5ReC+7i97l3dp2WQO0F4Wp4RwJ7h2J oMnf/2Ss+mJIz0ETvk49urgieQORIpjzJb0dZBkn9Ng1kWOu83vXgu8I3vtxcuUQm8/51Um 3PXCBIIYvH/GyKDW0v2q0U4YgCg9hsgZjtABflxFRwIUqh3uklZr6QioDhHA==
Received: from fifthhorseman.net (ip68-0-212-178.ri.ri.cox.net [68.0.212.178]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F008AF9A7; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:12:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8559620759; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 11:12:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP WG <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <871r9g9nmr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
References: <20210602230847.3593022-1-dkg@fifthhorseman.net> <87eedg9u4d.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <871r9grzeb.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <871r9g9nmr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEX+i03xYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdACA4xvL/xI5dHedcnkfViyq84doe8zFRid9jW7CC9XBiI0QQf FgoAgwWCX+i03wWJBZ+mAAMLCQcJEOCS6zpcoQ26RxQAAAAAAB4AIHNhbHRAbm90YXRpb25zLnNl cXVvaWEtcGdwLm9yZ/tr8E9NA10HvcAVlSxnox6z62KXCInWjZaiBIlgX6O5AxUKCAKbAQIeARYh BMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AADZHQD/Zx9nc3N2kj13AUsKMr/7zekBtgfSIGB3hRCU74Su G44A/34Yp6IAkndewLxb1WdRSokycnaCVyrk0nb4imeAYyoPtBc8ZGtnQGZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4u bmV0PojRBBMWCgCDBYJf6LTfBYkFn6YAAwsJBwkQ4JLrOlyhDbpHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3Rh dGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnL0Gwxvypz2tu1IPG+yu1zPjkiZwpscsitwrVvzN3bbADFQoI ApsBAh4BFiEEwp+KDAHzXjTYFqpc4JLrOlyhDboAAPkXAP0Z29z7jW+YzLzPTQML4EQLMbkHOfU4 +s+ki81Czt0WqgD/SJ8RyrqDCtEP8+E4ZSR01ysKqh+MUAsTaJlzZjehiQ24MwRf6LTfFgkrBgEE AdpHDwEBB0DkKHOW2kmqfAK461+acQ49gc2Z6VoXMChRqobGP0ubb4kBiAQYFgoBOgWCX+i03wWJ BZ+mAAkQ4JLrOlyhDbpHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3Jnfvo+ nHoxDwaLaJD8XZuXiaqBNZtIGXIypF1udBBRoc0CmwICHgG+oAQZFgoAbwWCX+i03wkQPp1xc3He VlxHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnaheiqE7Pfi3Atb3GGTw+ jFcBGOaobgzEJrhEuFpXREEWIQQttUkcnfDcj0MoY88+nXFzcd5WXAAAvrsBAIJ5sBg8Udocv25N stN/zWOiYpnjjvOjVMLH4fV3pWE1AP9T6hzHz7hRnAA8d01vqoxOlQ3O6cb/kFYAjqx3oMXSBhYh BMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AADX7gD/b83VObe14xrNP8xcltRrBZF5OE1rQSPkMNy+eWpk eCwA/1hxiS8ZxL5/elNjXiWuHXEvUGnRoVj745Vl48sZPVYMuDgEX+i03xIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEH QIGex1WZbH6xhUBve5mblScGYU+Y8QJOomXH+rr5tMsMAwEICYjJBBgWCgB7BYJf6LTfBYkFn6YA CRDgkus6XKENukcUAAAAAAAeACBzYWx0QG5vdGF0aW9ucy5zZXF1b2lhLXBncC5vcmcEAx9vTD3b J0SXkhvcRcCr6uIDJwic3KFKxkH1m4QW0QKbDAIeARYhBMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AAAX mwD8CWmukxwskU82RZLMk5fm1wCgMB5z8dA50KLw3rgsCykBAKg1w/Y7XpBS3SlXEegIg1K1e6dR fRxL7Z37WZXoH8AH
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2021 11:12:07 -0400
Message-ID: <87k0n7qb7c.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/YXaDz1PZQD6_lGUZL9l9KQKCU1E>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] [RFC4880bis PATCH] WIP: bind wire format representations to specific pubkey algorithms
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 15:12:37 -0000

On Sat 2021-06-05 20:23:24 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I guess every implementor who tries to layer OpenPGP on top of an
> existing PKCS#1 implementation will eventually learn about this, but I
> suspect I'm not the only one who was surprised by this.

Good call, Florian.  Can you propose language that would clarify this in
the current draft as implementation guidance?  seems like we might want
guidance for both signature generation and verification.

I've opened a request for a new test in the OpenPGP interoperability
test suite to see whether any of the tested implementations can handle
this:

https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/openpgp-interoperability-test-suite/-/issues/54

        --dkg