Re: [openpgp] New fingerprint: to v5 or not to v5

ianG <iang@iang.org> Mon, 05 October 2015 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <iang@iang.org>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6B41B5067 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543] autolearn=no
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 q4hrqXhlhB5S for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from virulha.pair.com (virulha.pair.com [209.68.5.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 234E01B5066 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 14:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tormenta.local (iang.org [209.197.106.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by virulha.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 388806D75E; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:27:08 -0400 (EDT)
To: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <878u84zy4r.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <87fv1xxe5w.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87r3lgcup8.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <CACsn0c=-LKagSqTbgOV1W4Gu4u-f6vpVq82-nWSLGogjoeFKeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwjeKDKnN2ZAisbKhWVS4kwCEm_VvcZ1MtftYzEJQpGdhg@mail.gmail.com> <87y4fi5wa9.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <74252.1444016636@eng-mail01.juniper.net>
From: ianG <iang@iang.org>
Message-ID: <561282D0.5000802@iang.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:01:52 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <74252.1444016636@eng-mail01.juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/zwXDjqtx4z60v7-SKxv7nWdCspY>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] New fingerprint: to v5 or not to v5
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 21:27:09 -0000

On 4/10/2015 23:43 pm, Mark D. Baushke wrote:
>> On Sun,  4 Oct 2015 03:50, phill@hallambaker.com said:
> ...
>> See rfc-4880, 12.2 (Key IDs and fingerprints)
> ...
>>      c) timestamp of key creation (4 octets);
>
> This reminds me. I suspect we want to move to be explicit that the
> timestamp is unsigned during RFC 4880bis,


Agreed - redefined to be unsigned.

It's timely (pun intended).


iang