IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> Mon, 07 June 2021 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <roam@ringlet.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 1986B3A0D92 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 03:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 DdfXsA8RbZ97 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 03:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from osse.kmail.bg (mx.kmail.bg [37.157.165.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C4523A0D93 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 03:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from straylight.m.ringlet.net (unknown [93.152.132.21]) by osse.kmail.bg (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F6E1103 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2021 13:22:25 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from roam (uid 1000) (envelope-from roam@ringlet.net) id 6200e2 by straylight.m.ringlet.net (DragonFly Mail Agent v0.13); Mon, 07 Jun 2021 13:22:24 +0300
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 13:22:24 +0300
From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <YL3zYBwALUh8oEed@straylight.m.ringlet.net>
References: <87lf7q6sh0.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <2e2495e8-6f4c-f842-3886-61cd696a6483@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/HMZzMPu6lbSf3ev"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2e2495e8-6f4c-f842-3886-61cd696a6483@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/bYVVcRDqUaMMXxzvTmon1ZsNVBI>
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: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 10:22:33 -0000

On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 01:13:50PM +0300, Nickolay Olshevsky wrote:
> On 04.06.2021 09:42, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > I've been reviewing the changes in draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-03.
> > I have concerns about most of the "v5" features currently incorporated.
> > 
> > ...
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It's slightly out of the original questions, but still related to the v5
> keys/sigs.
> 
> Basically, given that year 2038 will come in 17 years, and previous RFC 4880
> is already 14 years old without any replacement (yet), why v5 keys and
> signatures still have 32-bit creation time?
> 
> Or did I miss some discussion regarding this?

Obviously not speaking for any of the people who actually work on this,
but you need to keep in mind that the time field is defined as
an *unsigned* 32-bit number, so we'll have another 68 years after the
year 2038 to take care of that.

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev  roam@ringlet.net roam@debian.org pp@storpool.com
PGP key:        http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115  C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email