IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] [RFC4880bis PATCH] Deprecate "Revocation Key", replacing with full-key "Designated Revoker"

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 05 August 2019 18:24 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 49648120164 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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 5Un_VVyIoUKt for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:24:27 -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 97A1D12003E for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 11:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462R4T1L8HzFBJ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 20:24:25 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1565029465; bh=0Om3qEFRokDR+1ha11b62Vl+XmL69QDn+YPOdd+CzG4=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Z4CLw+Z3LRjIlERbFVqIenEtM4OVMaCpy2Ys4yIN4ufirSy397vZx3zEBLjNC3n2K QKNKnY01miPC+yxuh8VeXjfN2dz9xLoPfvInUeDkVKOE9eXTDISpOacbNEra6KHnTS vJ77fQa+9fFXqilztZdQPbkHVYttrRLTM3qgb88k=
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 5i-lacsflX90; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 20:24:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 20:24:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.13.13] (nat05.wpe01.151FrontStW01.YYZ.beanfield.com [66.207.198.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BD6A5C853; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:24:23 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bofh.nohats.ca 0BD6A5C853
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <87wofrmrry.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 14:24:22 -0400
Cc: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, IETF OpenPGP WG <openpgp@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <61041EDB-DE08-48B9-AB01-EC1B12E700F1@nohats.ca>
References: <87iocqepta.fsf@littlepip.fritz.box> <20190731203444.4822-1-dkg@fifthhorseman.net> <87wofrmrry.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
To: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/ehmuF1ApaPdr1qutPudYzz0fqAk>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] [RFC4880bis PATCH] Deprecate "Revocation Key", replacing with full-key "Designated Revoker"
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, 05 Aug 2019 18:24:29 -0000

> On Aug 5, 2019, at 13:44, Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> I view this as problematic in the light of our preparations to allow for
> larger key material.  With PQC we may need megabyte large keys and then
> including an entire key would double the size of a keyblock.

There is only one proposal in the NIST competition with that issue (McEliece) , and unlikely to be the winner, precisely because of that.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email