Re: [openpgp] Proposed Patch to RFC4880bis to reserve two public key numbers

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 07 July 2016 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 AE52712B048 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 05:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 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_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 nB7OAmz_PsrO for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 05:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D20712B014 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 05:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57004BE50; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:43:26 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UjxG_AlwIs1y; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:43:25 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7D9BBE4D; Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:43:24 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1467895405; bh=FS/He9pbO2xHT3PwfoUE/Ox+updiNCCeTG4ns6tVpOc=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Uu2QRos9VQde73G8fvX0swiRIQZJmvPjSl/3w7XPOJqJf+Egm9kbPnQSRCAZ3EvaY LgpQhRjTH/5OFVGHmScLqqu1GFFYWNz7wgV51zHQgzUZh0oJgEa0kLArIIdxJJshrh BaNHKvGWETg1QttJxjBpNR0288rsT8Cgsrhv3Eck=
To: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
References: <sjmfuuoymp8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <sjmr3b6pceb.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <87vb0iotil.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <577E1F99.9050000@cs.tcd.ie> <ebf6638c5749b3d4b6a971f2191f67d5.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <577E3E02.2000408@cs.tcd.ie> <a769ee258e4b87132b960be45bfe6d27.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <577E4E6C.7070604@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:43:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a769ee258e4b87132b960be45bfe6d27.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms000108060800010509010508"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/meAF8y1wmY22AMykHkYKx1i2HD8>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Proposed Patch to RFC4880bis to reserve two public key numbers
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 07 Jul 2016 12:43:31 -0000


On 07/07/16 13:33, Derek Atkins wrote:
> You brought up a paper showing a weak key/keyset and said there was no
> response, I pointed out a response.  I wasn't trying to discuss relative
> merits and agree this is not the place to do so.  But you started it ;)

Well, no - 'twas you guys started proposing AE I think:-)

Seriously though, if you're interested in AE being used
in Internet protocols, the cfrg list is the place to do
that I'd say, and at present the BBT paper is what's in
that archive uncontested. Up to you though of course.

S.