IETF Logo Mail Archive

[openpgp] User ID addr-spec (was: Minor comments on current draft)

Ángel <angel@16bits.net> Sun, 08 January 2023 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <angel@16bits.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 58E22C14EB14 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Jan 2023 10:46:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=16bits.net header.b=fCOuBfzJ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=16bits.net header.b=dbGar18X
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 Izow0_lRXZfA for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Jan 2023 10:45:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.direccionemail.com (mail.direccionemail.com [199.195.249.9]) (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 25B5CC14E513 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Jan 2023 10:45:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=16bits.net; s=ec2208; t=1673203553; bh=sNWSgw4W8wcjZJaS9dukDxBW/zzMBejEvSJVMWrN+Ps=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=fCOuBfzJMeJ86GYzQ6zj8QU1e7cfJT4hpYDvi7CmLDPhuvg6wffcw+Bn6+emF81bi 75iOdZfB8fCAPRYwkcNCQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=16bits.net; s=rsa2208; t=1673203553; bh=sNWSgw4W8wcjZJaS9dukDxBW/zzMBejEvSJVMWrN+Ps=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=dbGar18XkyNfyu2rXyWXtDK4VAm08qyc9mOaMTh1LegM5qHwRn1puN3MvbNoM72ZL GYRk6UldstT1pdpEkQ4er54ajEIxQNCnPhF+ko/p5jv8chsI+cFZoPUI8kLCsqtAE7 cNFQ4rxBCNql0W837BbONdtju6Lr5cn7Xq5h2FNxF13g5mR0PIWdj3+MjfbT1UPbGS lFXA15KaLcmWGmmltJm/VSYrchyVcaxBMA64HZv4eI4cgBLoCznT2dh/7T2l6WrJ+A IhU5AeqC3/MjDjQ0tCNVUlY2H7jNBony/kGW/adA+I2aG9PKbn6bAIk83YkFnJUOTy bxZLapl2b9yjA==
Message-ID: <a49f734e173491cff15d3a8da70c1e12e4393877.camel@16bits.net>
From: Ángel <angel@16bits.net>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2023 19:45:53 +0100
In-Reply-To: <87edth50oq.wl-neal@walfield.org>
References: <87edth50oq.wl-neal@walfield.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/gQ8lfy-w-1oV_iwTUxe4kpTTki8>
Subject: [openpgp] User ID addr-spec (was: Minor comments on current draft)
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: Sun, 08 Jan 2023 18:46:01 -0000

On 2022-12-02 at 15:40 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > 13.2.  Symmetric Algorithm Preferences
> > 
> >     The symmetric algorithm preference is an ordered list of
> > algorithms
> >     that the keyholder accepts.  Since it is found on a self-
> > signature,
> >     it is possible that a keyholder may have multiple, different
> >     preferences.  For example, Alice may have AES-128 only
> > specified for
> >     "alice@work.com" but Camellia-256, Twofish, and AES-128
> > specified for
> >     "alice@home.org".
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-07#section-13.2
> 
> Can we please change "alice@work.com" and "alice@home.org" to
> "<alice@work.com>" and "<alice@home.org>"?
> 
> Section 5.11 says that by convention User IDs are an [RFC2822] mail
> name-addr, but as-is, these are not valid name-addrs.

Agree.

However, UserID like alice@home.org *are* used. I think the spec should
replace name-addr with mailbox.

For reference, this is the syntax for them:
> mailbox         =       name-addr / addr-spec
> name-addr       =       [display-name] angle-addr
> angle-addr      =       [CFWS] "<" addr-spec ">" [CFWS] / obs-angle-
> addr

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2822#section-3.4

or just define the typical UserID contents ourselves.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email