Re: [openpgp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wouters-dane-openpgp-00.txt (fwd)

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 18 July 2013 19:21 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 13CEF11E81F6 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.693
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UYwEBGmirl5L for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2621A11E81E2 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3bx4vj15Rmz6qQ; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:21:21 -0400 (EDT)
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 B1HkXEUWKS4o; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:21:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [76.10.157.69]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 500) id E0D6E8188E; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E208179A; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 15:21:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Andrey Jivsov <openpgp@brainhub.org>
In-Reply-To: <51E8350E.7010403@brainhub.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1307181520270.22899@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.10.1307151832180.22103@bofh.nohats.ca> <51E482E5.5020201@brainhub.org> <alpine.LFD.2.10.1307152150210.22103@bofh.nohats.ca> <51E8350E.7010403@brainhub.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wouters-dane-openpgp-00.txt (fwd)
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:21:39 -0000

On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Andrey Jivsov wrote:

>>> 2. Given that the size of the record is very important when stored in
>>> DNS records, it's odd to see that ECC OpenPGP keys are not even
>>> mentioned.
>> 
>> I specifically did not want to limit the record to any particular type.
>> I just wanted it to support RFC OpenPGP compliant keys. Some people
>> don't want to use ECC (for legal other other reasons). Others don't
>> want to use ElGamal, DSA, RSA, etc. There is no reason for this draft
>> to distinguish and force people to pick a specific key type.
>
> I agree that support for all keys is one way to do this, but this intention 
> is unclear from the draft-wouters-dane-openpgp-00.txt: if one mentions RFC 
> 4880 but not RFC 6637, it can be interpreted as the exclusion of ECC keys.

I was simply not aware of RFC 6637. I will add a reference to it in the
document. Thanks!

Paul