[openpgp] Re: Specifying OpenPGP file extensions (and MIME type)?
Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Wed, 18 December 2024 15:11 UTC
Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
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 AA89EC169424 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 07:11:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.b="cWIH50ew"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.b="wHT+aOCk"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d3YQS99EKwwx for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 07:11:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (unknown [162.247.75.117]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D07FC16940D for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 07:11:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1734534664; h=from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=WRoATSxYXfmXncShPTXwefNPwhVxQY92g7PA4czhfMQ=; b=cWIH50ewNh6ZEI9/w7MSA3Aksk7rMf6JllwWH6gIsS6RsEzaG6A9NJze1zeD1OfkTWCTx 8tN27N3E2gXyeSnCA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1734534664; h=from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=WRoATSxYXfmXncShPTXwefNPwhVxQY92g7PA4czhfMQ=; b=wHT+aOCkxznlZ0HYvzhbv2XQs7G7mt1YnLjFrzk8t7u4bhvAbo8Y7djEDqQMAPNC291BV L0FH+DYC4XjYi8na9thl/V8FB1ijuHku9tSquw17xj4DztIQotb8XC+5ZjWqtD/Rb45PYC5 bCfkWD/kc54cfqUOC4oL/bG0J7v9d1+Fkh0bfabv+fsl1FrX4SGQNMlJZznB1DIPO0Gh6Bq uvkDYsr3vm/gIeZ/gkoBePY2NCcdO/znRwkeZ9tm1izhbvPnaCi1svrsyym6USg9YjFgtZY HsWNMOS/eKCZx0zSAAXtCu/Vn74d0JuPimIWuh1yYhSOAk5KJOSz9z3IPjHg==
Received: from fifthhorseman.net (lair.fifthhorseman.net [108.58.6.98]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8035F9B1 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Dec 2024 10:11:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C8DEC13F691; Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:49:22 -0500 (-05)
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: openpgp <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <WKLyA6liA56T21xXuqMWjCP4K0eTEfOMuz8oNLua_JiZwEhJJiXjl9Ed7h-HrI_jUYeST-UJ-hEdOsaDjUeGBvvZZkewDRphetWVjCkICLc=@protonmail.com>
References: <WKLyA6liA56T21xXuqMWjCP4K0eTEfOMuz8oNLua_JiZwEhJJiXjl9Ed7h-HrI_jUYeST-UJ-hEdOsaDjUeGBvvZZkewDRphetWVjCkICLc=@protonmail.com>
Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xjMEZXEJyxYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA5BpbW0bpl5qCng/RiqwhQINrplDMSS5JsO/YO+5Zi7HCi QQfFgoAMQWCZadnIAUJBdtHCwMLCQcDFQoIApsBAh4BFiEE1HcEDHDCFWpcKYVJu36RAUlea/ cACgkQu36RAUlea/edDQD+M2QjnoEyu/TjI+gRXBpXQ5jCsnnp9FdYhaSSUW/vZ8kBAJByWlj A9aMfVaVrmvgcYw7jzJz+gmZspBRB++5LZ20NzRc8ZGtnQGZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0PsLA EQQTFgoAeQMLCQdHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnEu/CS CeyWwC6j4ihJr2u/z6delsF1pvYW3ufgf1L538DFQoIApsBAh4BFiEE1HcEDHDCFWpcKYVJu3 6RAUlea/cFAmWnX5AFCQXZ8EUACgkQu36RAUlea/cjVwD+ONjdHM74rAa6EEiiqaPjlptiaZx CVqFYXnib6EbZARkBAPnnR8pW8vCBnDXHKu65jNqwF3aH761NaOqqMFfppg8GzjMEZXEJyxYJ KwYBBAHaRw8BAQdAjX25Fq2Q9IUFeHy6yByIQPBnFOedFliuEiCIUzJsENDCwMUEGBYKAS1HF AAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnwqKWsw56uoWVLIFcs7ZecJ gwpsSNevWCzbviKQ8yRLUCmwK+oAQZFgoAbwWCZXEJywkQdy0WHjXNS4FHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2F sdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnEIJSOxuw2y/UJmg5M3BLpN0JYjODZpXiEVFu 1byARzMWIQR0vATEPYYIS+hnLAZ3LRYeNc1LgQAAsH8BAKg1C5LK/D7pSkXCD+jfTSP+CqM58 iHLjh4vKhpOKsTJAQCHldtEjxJ1ksPTFgG9HihHH7qc6/wvvLw77ETMpwlrAxYhBNR3BAxwwh VqXCmFSbt+kQFJXmv3BQJlp1+rBQkCF4lgAAoJELt+kQFJXmv3ydsA/2roQZ2Jm/7iUrg/2C5 ClWA/xbvPC31LyMkGGH2/rq8tAP9BgqLuCPnNTVPqeX9+9qqMmaFq7wmvjq5I+yycAw9CDc44 BGVxCcsSCisGAQQBl1UBBQEBB0BZMsRrRaaeFSYMF1ZdfRmVgBriDUIr99eDQ085BK14DgMBC AfCwAYEGBYKAG5HFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnsazAWX tEHUPmSTmcRZAIsAsNiO8k0hdjsfRlRVipgJgCmwwWIQTUdwQMcMIValwphUm7fpEBSV5r9wU CZadfqwUJAheJYAAKCRC7fpEBSV5r90AjAPwLgY1iKiFJEj32SVD5f721929l79VxQB5FlQss x1n5kQEA6Uct2tPvbB6T7p5KG3Gl+tbi7oJAuxFmpkpW5/N2Owg=
Message-ID: <87y10efgxp.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Message-ID-Hash: QSATGKBBZ53YFFY7I4BGZNCUVDUSQ2EB
X-Message-ID-Hash: QSATGKBBZ53YFFY7I4BGZNCUVDUSQ2EB
X-MailFrom: dkg@fifthhorseman.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-openpgp.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [openpgp] Re: Specifying OpenPGP file extensions (and MIME type)?
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/zIti2BXqoxg8mIci8dLuwCsEkM0>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:openpgp-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:openpgp-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:openpgp-leave@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:11:13 -0000
X-Original-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:49:22 -0500
No hats on for this message. On Wed 2024-12-04 16:50:43 +0000, Daniel Huigens wrote: > Since the name of the standard is OpenPGP, I think .pgp is fine as a > filename, since it can also just be considered an abbreviation of > that. I agree with this. > Beyond a filename, it would also be nice to have a MIME type for PGP > messages. RFC3156 does define application/pgp-encrypted, but uses it > only for the "Version: 1" control text, while using > application/octet-stream for the actual encrypted data. right, the Media type "application/pgp-encrypted" is taken, meaning this "control" part of an RFC3156-formatted message. So it probably shouldn't be used for the things that we're talking about here. (as an aside, i think the PGP/MIME specification of this "conntrol" part is remarkably unhelpful; as an implementer, i have no idea what to do if the contents are anything other than "Version: 1", so it's just meaningless boilerplate in every message) I know that /etc/mime.types as shipped with debian isn't the same thing as the formal IANA Media Type registry (which doesn't say anything about filename "extensions", but these are what i've got on my system: 0 dkg@bob:~$ grep pgp /etc/mime.types application/pgp-encrypted pgp application/pgp-keys asc key application/pgp-signature sig 0 dkg@bob:~$ those three media types are defined in RFC 3156. Note that the mapping of the "pgp" filename extension does appear to imply a reuse of the "application/pgp-encrypted" media type for encrypted messages *and* the "control" part. That seems problematic. > Perhaps we could define application/pgp-message, to cover both > encrypted messages and inline-signed messages, for example? Is there a reason to use the same media type for both kinds of messages? If we're defining media types, why not define two distinct ones: one for an inline-signed message and one for an encrypted message? I know there has been talk of refining/constraining the OpenPGP message grammar. It seems to me that any such work would be a reasonable place to try to define a clean set of media types. --dkg
- [openpgp] Re: Specifying OpenPGP file extensions … Daniel Huigens
- [openpgp] Re: Specifying OpenPGP file extensions … Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- [openpgp] Re: Specifying OpenPGP file extensions … Daniel Huigens
- [openpgp] Re: Specifying OpenPGP file extensions … Andrew Gallagher
- [openpgp] Re: Specifying OpenPGP file extensions … Daniel Huigens
- [openpgp] Re: Specifying OpenPGP file extensions … Steffen Nurpmeso