[openpgp] text signatures

"Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org> Mon, 28 November 2022 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <neal@walfield.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 0486CC1524AF for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 06:59:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ndFcuvySrpiB for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 06:59:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.dasr.de (mail.dasr.de [202.61.250.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B352C1524BF for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 06:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p5de92f23.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.233.47.35] helo=forster.huenfield.org) by mail.dasr.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <neal@walfield.org>) id 1ozfbI-0004ft-LL for openpgp@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:59:16 +0100
Received: from grit.huenfield.org ([192.168.20.9] helo=grit.walfield.org) by forster.huenfield.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <neal@walfield.org>) id 1ozfbH-00E4R3-Pn for openpgp@ietf.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:59:16 +0100
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:59:15 +0100
Message-ID: <87mt8b5dmk.wl-neal@walfield.org>
From: "Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org>
To: IETF OpenPGP WG <openpgp@ietf.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/27.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.20.9
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: neal@walfield.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on forster.huenfield.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/b8VZXsE4pUwjJejOQNBIjxCrJeM>
Subject: [openpgp] text signatures
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 14:59:39 -0000

4880 says:

> 5.2.4.  Computing Signatures
>
>    For text document signatures (type 0x01), the
>    document is canonicalized by converting line endings to <CR><LF>,
>    and the resulting data is hashed.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4880.html#section-5.2.4

The crypto refresh changes this to say:

> 5.2.4.  Computing Signatures
>
>    For text document signatures (type 0x01), the
>    implementation MUST first canonicalize the document by converting
>    line endings to <CR><LF> and encoding it in UTF-8 (see [RFC3629]).

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-07#section-5.2.4

Specifically, the OpenPGP implementation must now also convert the
text to UTF-8.

I wonder if this will break anything?  I still communicate with users
of Thunderbird 68 (because they rely on the web of trust), which uses
windows-1252 and text signatures:

   $ sq packet dump --hex --session-key ... /tmp/encrypted.asc
   └── Signature Packet, old CTB, 3 header bytes + 563 bytes
           Version: 4
           Type: Text

My understanding is that windows-1252 is not a subset of UTF-8.

I suspect that if deployed as-is, these signatures will no longer
validate.  That seems unfortunate to me.

Thoughts?

Neal