Re: [openpgp] New fingerprint: to v5 or not to v5

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Tue, 06 October 2015 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387BE1B3B46 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 01:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 wa2FDTWUBTUN for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 01:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADD881B3B43 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 01:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) id 1ZjNG6-0000lF-R8 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:06:02 +0200
Received: from wk by vigenere.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1ZjNBM-0001qA-LY; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:01:08 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <878u84zy4r.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <87fv1xxe5w.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87r3lgcup8.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <CACsn0c=-LKagSqTbgOV1W4Gu4u-f6vpVq82-nWSLGogjoeFKeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjeKDKnN2ZAisbKhWVS4kwCEm_VvcZ1MtftYzEJQpGdhg@mail.gmail.com> <87y4fi5wa9.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73F4B278ED@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> <8737xp5z45.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73F4B279C6@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
Organisation: g10 Code GmbH
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
OpenPGP: id=F2AD85AC1E42B367; url=finger:wk@g10code.com
Mail-Followup-To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 10:01:08 +0200
In-Reply-To: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73F4B279C6@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> (Peter Gutmann's message of "Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:44:39 +0000")
Message-ID: <87fv1o4e9n.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/lONvesy0bELJywomrYB5qQTkvpM>
Cc: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] New fingerprint: to v5 or not to v5
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:06:06 -0000

On Mon,  5 Oct 2015 13:44, pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz said:

> Either leave it out or, much better, use an explicit ID stored with the key
> rather than one that's implicitly calculated from various bits and pieces

That explicit ID sounds pretty much like a issuer+serialno or one of the
other X.509 methods to identify a key.  It is not a fingerprint as we
know it and it can't be used as a secure identification of the key.

> surrounding the key.  That's how PKCS #15 and (ugh) PKCS #12 do it, it makes
> key lookup much less of a pain and avoids the current lost-key problem where
> you can't match up a key to a signature even though it's present and

Lost key?  Do you mean missing Issuer subpacket (5.2.3.5) or one
pointing two keys with duplicated long keyids?  I have never seen the
former and in any case I would consider this a corrupted message.  To
fix the latter we will certainly define the use of a fingerprint.

> I can't see anything in the charter that would exclude it, it says the work
> items "include, but are not limited to ...", and specifically allows for work
> that won't unduly delay things and that has support from the WG.

Changing the entire packet structure is not an easy thing and definitely
would delay the listed goals.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

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