IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Clarifiction on v5 signatures

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Thu, 25 October 2018 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
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 3448D130EBD for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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=gnupg.org
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 A6J329nmbjd4 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (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 00862130EBF for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnupg.org; s=20181017; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=wUQbM2833zHRCUghPYoyUZE5L3tMdqjaUXX6efSaDws=; b=RvGW4KO0uVjWngH/oYh+Yekg6r hVvsjYmEcqLbta2hUm1c6ibcQ02sVootahQt3IvS4JwDLXClRjGXRMqm1skHypf1wZi8lMXUf6Qtq NYHwyEDGSi6e7HDZ9ymotcu7n7Y2F/cSZAPIgyJO0blaJQun51KJ+VAPiMqvtIW55hoE=;
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1gFibG-00032z-77 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:35:10 +0200
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1gFiXP-0001nT-GF; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:31:11 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <wiktor=40metacode.biz@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Heiko Stamer <HeikoStamer@gmx.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
References: <877ei9szyc.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <dda2d47e-b06e-cd6c-9bab-d8f30149c2ad@gmx.net> <87mur2nyt6.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <f2770475-3b73-3849-33cf-91aaf52c1999@metacode.biz>
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <wiktor=40metacode.biz@dmarc.ietf.org>, Heiko Stamer <HeikoStamer@gmx.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:31:00 +0200
In-Reply-To: <f2770475-3b73-3849-33cf-91aaf52c1999@metacode.biz> (Wiktor Kwapisiewicz's message of "Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:57:36 +0200")
Message-ID: <87tvlam1iz.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=Manfurov_Exon_Shell_subversive_Clinton_kibo_INSCOM_world_domination="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/jV3Og6WUOtzQCmmrqp9q_4ZmPa0>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Clarifiction on v5 signatures
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: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:35:15 -0000

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:57, wiktor=40metacode.biz@dmarc.ietf.org said:

> Is the timestamping flag intentional?

I guess so.

> It doesn't seem to be related to v5 signatures.

I posted combined diff of Heiko's pacthes.  Here is his timestamp patch.
IIRC, we have talked in the past about it.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
commit 5ba02a3d8fcb59ceadf4940b51dc3701d0c60ab5
Author: Heiko Stamer <heikostamer@gmx.net>
Date:   Wed Oct 24 17:57:36 2018 +0000

    Added a flag for keys used for timestamping

	Modified   middle.mkd
diff --git a/middle.mkd b/middle.mkd
index 2d64c0f..c7657d4 100644
--- a/middle.mkd
+++ b/middle.mkd
@@ -1504,8 +1504,6 @@ #### Key Flags
 shorter than an implementation expects, the unstated flags are
 considered to be zero.  The defined flags are as follows:
 
-Defined features are as follows:
-
 First octet:
 
     0x01 - This key may be used to certify other keys.
@@ -1527,6 +1525,8 @@ #### Key Flags
 Second octet:
 
     0x04 - This key may be used as an additional decryption subkey (ADSK).
+    
+    0x08 - This key may be used for timestamping.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email