Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Sat, 06 August 2011 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
X-Original-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: woes@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EE521F8669 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 14:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.963
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.963 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pw5nnyuAN+7z for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 14:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCEDE21F865B for <woes@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 14:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so2582034vws.31 for <woes@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.24.77 with SMTP id s13mr3843319vdf.508.1312664466019; Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [186.10.239.121] ([186.10.239.121]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u4sm2130468vdh.13.2011.08.06.14.00.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 06 Aug 2011 14:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
References: <CA62F260.D797%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <CA62F260.D797%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
Message-Id: <53192E66-D578-4B2F-B715-61041D6A6F05@ve7jtb.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 16:40:04 -0400
To: Joe Hildebrand <joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8L1)
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8L1)
Cc: "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
X-BeenThere: woes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Web Object Encryption and Signing \(woes\) BOF discussion list" <woes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/woes>, <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/woes>
List-Post: <mailto:woes@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes>, <mailto:woes-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 21:00:46 -0000

Short term stuff first. 

Boil ocean stage 2. 

Replacing PKIX may be a noble goal,  but is out of scope for phase 1. 

John B. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 2011-08-06, at 1:30 PM, Joe Hildebrand <joe.hildebrand@webex.com> wrote:

> On 8/6/11 7:43 AM, "Leif Johansson" <leifj@mnt.se> wrote:
> 
>> So in that case I still support having the spec explain (very carefully)
>> how you do "raw keys" - i.e keys with no intrinsic semantics - and then
>> also adding the cryptographers caveat to that.
> 
> To be clear, when I was talking about raw keys, I didn't mean keys with no
> intrinsic semantics.  I just meant something along the lines of PKCS1; a
> modulus, an exponent, some algorithm info, and that's about it (I'd be ok
> with defining private keys in the same format as well).  It would have
> defined semantic, it just wouldn't be tied to an identity.
> 
> A definite goal for me that is NOT met by PKCS1 however, is to *limit* the
> choices and extensibility in certain directions to reduce the overall
> complexity.
> 
> Of course, once you've got primitives for sign and encrypt and you've got a
> key format, doing something like PKIX is possible.  Perhaps we could sketch
> that out as potential follow-on work in the charter, so we can make progress
> on some of the shorter-term stuff first?
> 
> -- 
> Joe Hildebrand
> 
> _______________________________________________
> woes mailing list
> woes@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes