IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Wed, 06 July 2016 23:36 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 D7BE012D5D7 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:36:42 -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 DY42L09_AFX3 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:36:37 -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 9957612D145 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FFC7E2039; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:36:35 -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 09656-05; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:36:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from securerf.ihtfp.org (IHTFP-DHCP-159.IHTFP.ORG [192.168.248.159]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mocana.ihtfp.org", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB3BEE2030; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:36:32 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ihtfp.com; s=default; t=1467848192; bh=dWC8n8vewvvCyEE57p7W47hg2cdhCHbRfqZAVwyGKVU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=lFYd14Zi9nPsb5S/NjhNENkApXFy4WwtaTEl84zvx8aP848bOCpoqO8x7vwVFTjo6 v7TL79WALmIP75NBHQf5ymKSI5QlV4B/HzjFOB/sQfrvd7hJssqN9JeGY0iC4ZrYxO +DthllvBzgFSrrrlUcQixzUawSjQCchwNtOkYbiU=
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by securerf.ihtfp.org (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id u66NaSqS022439; Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:36:28 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
References: <sjmfuuoymp8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 19:36:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <sjmfuuoymp8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> (Derek Atkins's message of "Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:12:03 -0400")
Message-ID: <sjmr3b6pceb.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/d-hJUEAMrSC1qaxkQZ7HmfQ6ZJ4>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
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: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 23:36:43 -0000

Hi,

Now that we've accepted the draft, I'd like to re-open this proposal to
reserve two public-key algorithm protocol numbers.  Note (again) that
this is *JUST A RESERVATION* of these numbers, and if you read the patch
and still think that you *have* to implement these algorithms then I'd
like to hear your wording suggestion for how to fix that misconception.

I've re-attached this patch (although I haven't rebased it).  My
original message is included below.

Thanks,

-derek

> Hi,
>
> The attached patch to RFC4880bis reserves two public-key parameters.
> They are specified as "reserved" and I've added text to 13.8 as well
> documenting that they are underspecified.
>
> Note that these are NOT "MTI" algorithms in any way, shape, or form!
>
> Thanks,
>
> -derek


-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email