Re: [openpgp] Registration of the 'proof' notation

"Neal H. Walfield" <> Thu, 01 October 2020 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557B03A0F26; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 03:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.877
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.877 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FC47pFnWmqqf; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 03:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F4803A0F25; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 03:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1kNw1n-0002h6-Ix; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 10:41:35 +0000
Received: from ([] by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1kNw1n-0000pn-0r; Thu, 01 Oct 2020 12:41:35 +0200
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 12:41:34 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: "Neal H. Walfield" <>
Cc: Wiktor Kwapisiewicz <>, "" <>, Jon Callas <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Goj=F2?=) APEL/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/26 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Registration of the 'proof' notation
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 10:41:40 -0000

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your comments.

On Thu, 01 Oct 2020 01:14:22 +0200,
Jon Callas wrote:
> I can think of another utterly different syntax, though, that would
> be similar to what Vinnie Moscaritolo and Tony Mione did in "PGP
> Tickets" which you can find as an I-D at
> <>.
> The idea here would be that it would be like an Attribute
> Certificate, or a capability. It would permit (e.g.) a sysadmin to
> be able to say that the holder of a key is the owner of a file path
> on a server. (Vinnie wrote software for this exact case. You could
> sign in to a file server with an OpenPGP key and the ticket could
> describe what authorizations you had.)
> I don't think this is exactly what you want, but it's close. An
> advantage of the ticket approach is that you don't need anyone's
> permission to do it. It could literally be a bit of defined YAML or
> JSON that you clear-sign as text, and then poof, you're done. You
> don't have to listen to any of us give helpful comments about what
> you want to do, you just do it.

Thanks for pointing this out, I was not aware of this work.  I have a
special place in my heart for object capability systems, so I was
happy to learn that some work has already been done on that in the
OpenPGP ecosystem.

I'm a bit confused, however, how PGPtickets are analogous to social
proofs.  A social proof is an identity ("my handle on this service is
X").  PGPtickets are authorizations.  When I create a social proof,
I'm not normally delegating any authority; I'm advertising an
identity.  And, an authorization in the o-cap world is normally free
of identity information (authorization-based, not identity-based,
access control is the mantra).

Thanks for any feedback.

:) Neal