Re: [openpgp] v5 Secret-Key Packet Formats

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Fri, 12 January 2018 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
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 85C9012E881 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 07:23:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ritter.vg
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 JoAaAWdAY8u3 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 07:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C811C127775 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 07:23:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id q1so9037564qkb.9 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 07:23:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=QKvz2raReYVMvvoGlJGpnvB1X/gmxwJ4gLo7TwxTVAE=; b=yTY+NkMmx7BqPfsUyqX1jyUZ1jHX47Z8WnYSxB523P+m3rjEaHBMA6mGtYzcdRZWN+ x1dVGv1CRfHn73T/LFY93c/nN2uNnc9D8J0nuI9e9U4pmhbtXSkSlcgzG5HKuljoQtwE 2aXcvjD2av3rDb8j40AKad/O1ImZLDUB4J3fI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=QKvz2raReYVMvvoGlJGpnvB1X/gmxwJ4gLo7TwxTVAE=; b=nNXJ/GWRF8+EwQ1n40TO3QhOpBaC24wuL1J8G0I+UMxWnKTSJywCV7846emzBmyhGS X5INE9UCaELCDQPJwFgJcivG3vfK9bWADjxD+BUr9x5j+DoYWqlmTUyZB/eySmlCIS9g w7hn99FOUm1zy6WVg0oUr/V0nVsIF5vCqrn4uCSw7IcQ0duNbc2Wb1o1tztIEkLRWgPn iB4gUyPWev9/vIvMdHHC5BjWBocDlE7tFa3SZqCo9ih1A2vqA4exaayduaTNOmbJ2MuQ rR5PFJBvUg6yAvL494zOkb58xGFi2URAFDmN3kUpQZ++DRThGeK6OzL2wBTJ8BAs6/us Xupg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfLA0KLn/ZKPTqcKAmH2T3hH+64RZx4tV5kBVEI8Cgb7RYPzGQu JzIJruJrZkGipOveK23eWqXWzlxqvogcZYPWYmuGCufL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos+daL6UrFA2EGoUrb1zZ4eHstuDzR3QtB2JXU8XmnxGEzehGQXlp6lzM4kF/+6cOssARs1rcfgP2G7YAPFuFg=
X-Received: by 10.55.214.75 with SMTP id t72mr38757246qki.12.1515770585449; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 07:23:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.27.242 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 07:22:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <87a7xjfk07.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
References: <87a7xjfk07.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:22:44 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+cU71ng8ssamWGgLg-LHkqo6Jk4YF=xTmzH-71AvkKm=njgBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>, "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/oFQ6iw_ZBmXzVapvY0GgK1lef2Q>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] v5 Secret-Key Packet Formats
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:23:08 -0000

On 12 January 2018 at 04:29, Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> wrote:
> What do you think?

Would this be adding a new mode that would have to be implemented?
That is in addition to adding chunked AEAD we're now also adding
non-chunked AEAD?

-tom