IETF Logo Mail Archive

[openpgp] Re: Outstanding questions re Key Replacement draft

Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> Thu, 20 March 2025 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <andrewg@andrewg.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: openpgp@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C3EF984EE for <openpgp@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 04:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=andrewg.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id if5gT5j0QL2d for <openpgp@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 04:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fum.andrewg.com (fum.andrewg.com [IPv6:2a01:4f9:c011:23ad::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23A43F984E6 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 04:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com; s=andrewg-com; t=1742468790; bh=mP/rNkfVHHT6ktXPmXV4w+aeyTJK8mT7FH6fdWK3Fb8=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=UaNMJZ0VDoSg0fP3N/E8b+k6kL6Ajla199/GIHv+0vzxOXLXTNqX5vye2crTpG/7c VcT1TtFugxiIm+sqsxiGrTstshCcgx5attCQPf/lj9jUC08S8BHvKvD0mkpsQm1+Yr mIzvnHC8FcKPmlH70XgUU5GIoLYRZcjD5RrrNpOzDqhubfvE6c235JPsclO1Pk+DXP ZPyVhThO3yEKzLijPMuCi4WhUzcySd2UflYEvBF1unjao+yx4tOXpf/6q+8KH//fMd Bk5LvlqJ9t+Fe65xrn5OAR72XZ/plypYbq3dzuXEq1JOcaSC1+yWHe4uZSU7bG0SPn pE0EZBVRzwYsg==
Received: from smtpclient.apple (serenity [IPv6:fc93:5820:7349:eda2:99a7::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by fum.andrewg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 082095DDA2 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:06:29 +0000 (UTC)
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_915233C4-4070-41A5-B7D3-FE79AD6E47BE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6.1.9\))
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:06:11 +0000
References: <D3636DB1-6E54-4F19-94B9-CB4AEDC7C997@andrewg.com> <87frjevog8.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
To: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <87frjevog8.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Message-Id: <634C422D-6962-4E31-9ED0-8A92A76EF21F@andrewg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6.1.9)
Message-ID-Hash: M3H5M5LQVEK7CMVEZRZZ3KVJ4LMFIVUD
X-Message-ID-Hash: M3H5M5LQVEK7CMVEZRZZ3KVJ4LMFIVUD
X-MailFrom: andrewg@andrewg.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-openpgp.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [openpgp] Re: Outstanding questions re Key Replacement draft
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/gma9QNxpmjUk8rm79hjpKoFxtGE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:openpgp-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:openpgp-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:openpgp-leave@ietf.org>

On 15 Mar 2025, at 05:43, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
> 
> I also prefer option 0.

As I mentioned just now in the IETF122 meeting, given that there are multiple explicitly reasoned preferences in favour of option 0, and only one for option 1, I am leaning towards option 0 (no further change) at this time.

If anyone has any further objections to the current state of fallback, please speak up in the next two weeks. If not, I will release a (final???) draft and recommend adding it to the queue for WGLC (after PQC).

Thanks, everyone.
A

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status