Re: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2633 (5019)

Blake Ramsdell <blaker@gmail.com> Mon, 15 May 2017 04:48 UTC

Return-Path: <blaker@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023661270A3 for <smime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 May 2017 21:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 WyQcSamZdC5O for <smime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 May 2017 21:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x236.google.com (mail-wr0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::236]) (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 017B9129AD2 for <smime@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 May 2017 21:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x236.google.com with SMTP id w50so72906026wrc.0 for <smime@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 May 2017 21:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wH4aocjsjuX+li4lE0Ymsx8AcMcareckp05kJRF15bA=; b=S1N0Xjp7vvEilmHr47lbBzn/XMGuONtLn7jKPPvCchx8RMmqImRRJQPp/Nkk2a8cNH GYvMMULtqkCas1BW++HHVAfv015R8Opf/HxX7eN2mMZ61dQmxbUHP4KpKIMNxcfJLeZo iWIqa/oSbuMR1nrzW7AuVPdljP5diaTYa5z/QM4M8Ng7AS1caVn7gex4UAb/B2AdFzdD NQu+pa/EP7ANBeA5LW3VJwCzibPSu8YBqn4bSahYHf5kxByUNKBDk3kh182kgBnDkHxC wTvhcUBiFoW9i7bmWQRVcylztVPl6PmeCKtISF8Cm6LVZ1C4Ubnnb512Dz4ee6G3TjIW eYCA==
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:cc; bh=wH4aocjsjuX+li4lE0Ymsx8AcMcareckp05kJRF15bA=; b=D8YR69xZjqrodKfu6mQtSoZnWGX8XXV2VccSVu3lZZuiock6ZL9+zpfCLSrujpPrHH X6OfUqW7WGKFnhgncp8Y2IY94//HoIul+rYqUr5q82eNMOQPXdKWLMaie1VYG7n+69z+ fvCjCfMDuLYkW7piKdlpb3TbxM8sX5CQzp4BBpPL47ubY1wjdywu5bhNpMencC7fCUA/ 8OKVUza7n92PAxRKOgIgRCNxtq9phnwueuUYsbne8hFuNZxxIQOvvFNzF4gHRQfCQBYB wsXFslR+aNPsCop4zMisP5LBTkgaCC1e+NMV/F7G2YKajHEsLI3w1RT6zavtfp4sTKpb 27CQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcA12hMe8STk3GHbHLrorrn6CuMJty0hdD3CEq19cERtZG5KrsVf qOu5e5K4sjqqN9YMjMdgj9naGiP1ew==
X-Received: by 10.223.176.163 with SMTP id i32mr3122999wra.32.1494823401503; Sun, 14 May 2017 21:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.147.230 with HTTP; Sun, 14 May 2017 21:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1494809561399.43186@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <20170514163550.3ECC2B80A6E@rfc-editor.org> <13A0972A-2D00-4DF8-BFA9-C022D914BCEF@vigilsec.com> <CACZqfqCek=p0y00mAWGs5Sw6xbNJWDJOFk_N8kWa+uwk2JWa4Q@mail.gmail.com> <B4CB5D68-ABFA-4055-986B-75AA747CE66E@vigilsec.com> <1494809561399.43186@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
From: Blake Ramsdell <blaker@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 21:43:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAB=JzvHhaWj9Od+x08fbhcZE2vWK7kYAtaNJZUiqNj6vVArM3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Josh Soref <jsoref@gmail.com>, Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, IETF SMIME <smime@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/smime/CmqE-UA9YVijFsOSSXm9cymKiE0>
Subject: Re: [smime] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC2633 (5019)
X-BeenThere: smime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: SMIME Working Group <smime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/smime>, <mailto:smime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/smime/>
List-Post: <mailto:smime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime>, <mailto:smime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 04:48:10 -0000

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Peter Gutmann
<pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> Or we could do something completely radical and ask Blake what he meant there.

I did a search through my email, and this may go back farther than my
records. From my standpoint I probably would have named it
id-aa-smimeEncryptionKeyPreference. I think that I had support from
one or more ASN.1 specialists to create the final name, and the name
wasn't really that critical for me, and it may have required
truncation due to ASN.1 compiler limitations or some other technical
thing. I see this discussion going all the way back to 1999 in an
ASN.1 module that Jim Schaad created. As has been pointed out, this is
used internally in technical tools for the construction, parsing, and
debug dumping out, so it has no real user-facing impact.

Channeling 1990's Blake, I think I didn't have a strong opinion about
what the human-readable name was for the attribute, the
interoperability was based on the object identifier and semantics
defined for it, and as long as the same OID ended up in the right
place, and if everyone uses the same one when they talk about it, the
world has order for me.

I have seen multiple people chime in with a position that this is not
a technically important fix, and I agree with that position.