Re: [openpgp] OpenPGP Web Key Directory I-D

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Fri, 09 November 2018 11:20 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 17D87128A6E for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:20:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 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] 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 z-4Snagb7W7r for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:20:11 -0800 (PST)
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 E5384124D68 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:20:10 -0800 (PST)
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=O1KCehgskmeh63rqWUIlkz6aqgyxKN5C77GjYatY+aM=; b=IBFCyYrbHoQNH59Z9NE6mCBxGT rF1oV3ODeXmAbPcwh4ByoLzYE2k/w0VFk0EAfRSKfrAeJGNpnQeZiZ/+S/+f7pYF+HXuv4gklj00e VXHWOdgck73aP8mte1iH5ZpPmI3Vlnf+n8ewueI0OrC9xlZaDHJnkuCu+8Gk2672j33s=;
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1gL4pd-0003Ls-8I for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 12:20:09 +0100
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1gL4nO-00071c-Sa; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 12:17:50 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <23523.16831.292658.490356@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <874lcsyr3p.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <23525.26229.995360.750323@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 12:17:50 +0100
In-Reply-To: <23525.26229.995360.750323@chiark.greenend.org.uk> (Ian Jackson's message of "Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:50:29 +0000")
Message-ID: <87r2fuv6sh.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=national_information_infrastructure_Semtex_9705_Samford_Road=illumin"; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/pmn5GW6DP4IWZaoWHhcXaD8je2c>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] OpenPGP Web Key Directory I-D
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: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 11:20:13 -0000

On Fri,  9 Nov 2018 11:50, ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk said:

> It certainly would allow serving the data from static files.  If you
> wanted case-insensitivity and can't configure your webserver to smash

It is not only about the case but about allowed characters in a file
name.  In particular '/' and depending on file system the length.  Noet
that '/' is a valid character in the local part of the addrspec.

> Since you are still in the protocol design phase, you would no doubt
> welcome implementation and deployment of an alternative simpler

Nope.  It is in use for more than 2 years.

The only simpler thing which could have been done would be to skip the
hashing and directly use the z-base-32 encoding.  The only drawback
would have been that very long addresses won't work on all file systems.

Changes to the SVR record thing should be possible because I doubt that
this is widely used (Caesonia specifies it use, though).


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

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