Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Fri, 05 August 2011 12:11 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.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 F277321F8B80 for <woes@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.473
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 99pnzqm8xwhx for
<woes@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com
[209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D70E21F8B6B for
<woes@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5so1865175gyd.31 for <woes@ietf.org>;
Fri, 05 Aug 2011 05:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type; bh=Fk/jk4Y0yMmVJRn7rTW58OARpRDRXQLXZq5IJcUzdL8=;
b=lv2a+g75g5tWEjbVoyNv6PpTm42hDg3+O+fWLmMCIasx6PsZw5LCgepr5Q3zjt6IbF
AL9Skw57nopuZ6Sc1vp2F1VELEGwrp5FUNfsrSKBfSqVQledDQQcqhY2UIVzLatvhfKt
B9HJb1ex4R5xuOdNdHhX3QyV+WiiWFLGy1U+Q=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.189.1 with SMTP id r1mr1863375anp.6.1312546262695;
Fri, 05 Aug 2011 05:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.34.3 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 05:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA60EB18.D5CF%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
References: <b9332337-4efa-4355-93a9-7866a5506bb5@default>
<CA60EB18.D5CF%joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:11:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwggXXryGuk7gxovPi2FyOpx2UoEc_b0nYGJV=PJ=WXUWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Joe Hildebrand <joe.hildebrand@webex.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5bbf3bd3eef04a9c0fde3
Cc: "woes@ietf.org" <woes@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.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: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:11:59 -0000
Support for naked keys is useful. Lack of support for certificates where needed would be unacceptable and render the format unsuited for many of the applications we need it for. Certificates are pretty simple to deal with. The problems that they are used to address are not simple. Whatever you thought of the 'Trust Router' proposal made at last IETF, it is certainly no simpler than the PKI based approach and that is before they have put it in operation and found the operational requirements. For my application I need certificates and will use them. The question then is not whether the spec will use them, it is whether the way in which they are used is standardized or not. On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Joe Hildebrand <joe.hildebrand@webex.com>wrote;wrote: > On 8/4/11 4:48 PM, "Hal Lockhart" <hal.lockhart@oracle.com> wrote: > > >> 3) A Standards Track document specifying how to encode public > >> keys as JSON-structured objects. > >> > > > > I would like to push back on the idea of only supporting naked public > keys. It > > is my understanding that common cryto libraries, e.g. OpenSSL, expect > public > > keys to be in certificates and the coding to get them to accept a naked > key as > > input is ugly. I don't think they care if the cert is self signed or even > > signed at all, its just a format issue. > > Just doing the math yourself, from scratch, is pretty easy if you have the > bare key. It's nigh-on trivial if you have a bigint library. Solution: > don't use OpenSSL. I propose we don't get bogged down in the certificate > problem for the moment. > > -- > Joe Hildebrand > > _______________________________________________ > woes mailing list > woes@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/woes > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
- [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Matt Miller
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul Hoffman
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Jeremy Laurenson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Hal Lockhart
- [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed charte… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Sean Turner
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Jeremy Laurenson
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Leif Johansson
- Re: [woes] Proposed charter, post-Quebec edition Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Ben Adida
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Ben Adida
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Naked Public Key, was: RE: Proposed ch… Hal Lockhart
- [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? was RE… Hal Lockhart
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… John Bradley
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Richard L. Barnes
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Thomas Hardjono
- Re: [woes] Support multiple Crypto algorithms? wa… Joe Hildebrand