From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Fri Nov 1 18:14:09 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08030 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:14:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA1N1mn03276 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfw.transarc.ibm.com (xfw.transarc.ibm.com [192.54.226.51]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA1N1kW03272 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:01:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (mailhost.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.192.124]) by xfw.transarc.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id RAA25240 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:47:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mwyoung (dhcp-193-40.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.193.240]) by mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with SMTP id SAA07514 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:01:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> From: "Michael Young" To: Subject: Reference for "IETF name space"? Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:01:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Section 5.2.3.16, Notation Data, explains that tags fall into one of two name spaces: the "IETF name space" and a "user name space". What IETF name space is this? If it is the URN namespace for IETF documents, described by RFC2648, how is it applied here? If it's something else, could someone provide me a reference? Further, could someone offer an example of a notation tag in the IETF space? Back in 1999, Thomas Roessler suggested > Note: New notation data names in the IETF name space may be > registered by sending e-mail to > . The listing of current > values may be obtained by sending e-mail to > . This doesn't seem to have happened. Is there another registry, or is this just a free-for-all? Thanks for any information you can provide! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3 iQA/AwUBPcMHmVMkvpTT8vCGEQLu+ACgh3ccll1DisjC0uDDyUYd9ji5RogAnAwq x2kotpp4akgncSZmI3mqSpcV =RQTY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 2 07:47:48 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03927 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 07:47:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA2Cf0q05150 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 04:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.130.129]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA2CexW05146 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 04:40:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gA2Cesr14517 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 07:40:54 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 07:40:54 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? Message-ID: <20021102124054.GA10309@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 06:01:01PM -0500, Michael Young wrote: > Section 5.2.3.16, Notation Data, explains that tags fall into one of two > name spaces: the "IETF name space" and a "user name space". > > What IETF name space is this? If it is the URN namespace for IETF > documents, described by RFC2648, how is it applied here? If it's > something else, could someone provide me a reference? Further, > could someone offer an example of a notation tag in the IETF space? There is no (simple) mechanism to register new tags. There is a rationale statement for this at the head of the RFC, under "IESG Note". Basically, the idea is that there can be subtle interactions with unrestricted extensions of the standard, so this is a way to force proposed extensions to go through the WG process to get wider consideration. There are no notation tags in the IETF space yet. However, a few months ago, I pulled together a list of all notations used on keys on the keyserver net. Perhaps unsurprisingly, nobody used the user name space. By far the most common notation used (87%) was "COMMENT". David -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 2 17:25:37 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13692 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 17:25:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA2MJa211045 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 14:19:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net (smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net [64.8.50.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA2MJNW11023 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 14:19:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mwyoung ([24.48.51.230]) by smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 smtprelay7 Dec 7 2001 09:58:59) with SMTP id H4YZC400.LA9 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 17:19:16 -0500 Message-ID: <000401c282bd$d4d5b3c0$c23fa8c0@transarc.ibm.com> From: "Michael Young" To: References: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102124054.GA10309@jabberwocky.com> Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 17:18:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 From: "David Shaw" > There is no (simple) mechanism to register new tags. There is a > rationale statement for this at the head of the RFC, under "IESG > Note". Basically, the idea is that there can be subtle interactions > with unrestricted extensions of the standard, so this is a way to > force proposed extensions to go through the WG process to get wider > consideration. The "subtle interactions" comment appears to be aimed at security (cryptographic) issues. It makes less sense for clearly user-defined content like notations. As long as the ownership of any given tag is clear (by using well-defined name spaces), I don't see a problem. But, this was a sidelight to my main question, which was... > There are no notation tags in the IETF space yet. However, a few What *is* the IETF name space? What does it look like? > months ago, I pulled together a list of all notations used on keys on > the keyserver net. Perhaps unsurprisingly, nobody used the user name > space. By far the most common notation used (87%) was "COMMENT". By definition, any tag not in the user name space should be in the IETF name space. If you say that there are none in this name space yet, you must know something about the structure of the IETF name space (to know that the existing tags don't fit). Could you give an example of a valid name in the IETF space, and/or a reference to a definition of the IETF space? It certainly doesn't surprise me that there were no tags in the user name space. It was only a few months ago that I noted that GnuPG rejected names with "@" in them. (I suspect it was David who fixed it. Thanks. :-) I should also note that the "user" name space is not particularly usable by ordinary folks. According to the RFC, the owner of "name@foo.bar" is the owner of "foo.bar". Many users don't own domain names; at best, they "own" an e-mail address or login name at an ISP. Further, most own only one; even if the ISP delegated its space by e-mail address (as the RFC loosely suggests), each user would have only one tag. Calling it a "user" name space (rather than a "DNS" name space) is misleading. So, it doesn't surprise me that people have used simple, unstructured tag names, either ignoring conflict or assuming that human interpretation would be obvious and uncontroversial. Lastly, does anyone happen to know whether/how PGP8 supports notations? Thanks again! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3 iQA/AwUBPcRPO1MkvpTT8vCGEQIQ6wCgo35xyTboHTK9wyawpD1xVxGwQ5oAnjh0 yjdusKPuOOIV+/UxwrQ4GQnW =pzew -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 2 19:05:18 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15244 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 19:05:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA2NvAm15308 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 15:57:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.130.129]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA2Nv8W15300 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 15:57:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gA2Nv5U23471 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:57:05 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:57:05 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? Message-ID: <20021102235705.GA22874@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102124054.GA10309@jabberwocky.com> <000401c282bd$d4d5b3c0$c23fa8c0@transarc.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000401c282bd$d4d5b3c0$c23fa8c0@transarc.ibm.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 05:18:53PM -0500, Michael Young wrote: > From: "David Shaw" > > There is no (simple) mechanism to register new tags. There is a > > rationale statement for this at the head of the RFC, under "IESG > > Note". Basically, the idea is that there can be subtle interactions > > with unrestricted extensions of the standard, so this is a way to > > force proposed extensions to go through the WG process to get wider > > consideration. > > The "subtle interactions" comment appears to be aimed at security > (cryptographic) issues. It makes less sense for clearly user-defined > content like notations. As long as the ownership of any given tag > is clear (by using well-defined name spaces), I don't see a problem. There can be subtle interactions even with non obviously cryptographic issues. For example, the PGP comment packet was dropped partially to avoid the possibility of a rogue implementation leaking information via that channel. Even the MessageID armor header has a restriction about how it is used to avoid the same problem. It's quite possible the barn door is already wide open on using notations to do the same thing though. But still, there isn't any problem with adding tags at any time for any purpose to the user name space. That's what it's there for. Only tags in the IETF name space needs some review before the tag is accepted. > But, this was a sidelight to my main question, which was... > > > There are no notation tags in the IETF space yet. However, a few > > What *is* the IETF name space? What does it look like? Any tag that doesn't have a '@' sign in it is in the IETF name space. > > months ago, I pulled together a list of all notations used on keys on > > the keyserver net. Perhaps unsurprisingly, nobody used the user name > > space. By far the most common notation used (87%) was "COMMENT". > > By definition, any tag not in the user name space should be in the > IETF name space. If you say that there are none in this name space > yet, you must know something about the structure of the IETF name > space (to know that the existing tags don't fit). Could you give an > example of a valid name in the IETF space, and/or a reference to a > definition of the IETF space? 2440bis specifies the IETF space as anything without a '@' sign in it, so "COMMENT" would be a perfectly valid notation tag. Of course, it's not perfectly valid since that tag was never assigned by the IETF, but it is a tag that the IETF *could* use. The IETF hasn't assigned any tags yet, so any tag without a '@' in it is currently an invalid tag. > It certainly doesn't surprise me that there were no tags in the > user name space. It was only a few months ago that I noted that > GnuPG rejected names with "@" in them. (I suspect it was David > who fixed it. Thanks. :-) You're welcome :) The problem was that the notation naming scheme in GnuPG was originally written to follow 2440. The '@' scheme came in one of the 2440bis series. > I should also note that the "user" name space is not particularly > usable by ordinary folks. According to the RFC, the owner of > "name@foo.bar" is the owner of "foo.bar". Many users don't own domain > names; at best, they "own" an e-mail address or login name at an ISP. > Further, most own only one; even if the ISP delegated its space by > e-mail address (as the RFC loosely suggests), each user would have > only one tag. Calling it a "user" name space (rather than a "DNS" > name space) is misleading. There is no restriction as to what comes before the '@' (except that it is UTF-8) so a user can certainly use tags of the form "loginname+tagname1@...", "loginname+tagname2@...", etc. It doesn't have to be a valid email address, though it's nice if it is. > So, it doesn't surprise me that people have used simple, unstructured > tag names, either ignoring conflict or assuming that human > interpretation would be obvious and uncontroversial. I suspect that very few people even knew there were reserved names at all, since 2440 doesn't define this, and I doubt anyone using GnuPG reads 2440bis (or 2440 for that matter) before starting. ;) I've actually been toying with the idea of disallowing any notation name that doesn't have a "@" in it for GnuPG (with an override for experts who presumably know what they are doing). > Lastly, does anyone happen to know whether/how PGP8 supports notations? Silently ignores them, though it does properly fail signature verification if the notation is marked critical. That is RFC compliant behavior. David -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 4 11:04:33 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19626 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:04:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA4Fow506987 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2.lok.com (root@compute2.lok.com [63.240.72.19]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA4FovW06983 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:50:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2 (vedaal@localhost.my.domain [127.0.0.1]) by compute2.lok.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gA4Foj5j014322 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:50:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211041550.gA4Foj5j014322@compute2.lok.com> From: vedaal@lok.com To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? X-LokTek-Version: v2.3.3 Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 10:50:45 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 David wrote: > 2440bis specifies the IETF space as anything without a '@' sign > in it, so "COMMENT" would be a perfectly valid notation tag. ... > > Lastly, does anyone happen to know whether/how PGP8 supports >notations? > > Silently ignores them, though it does properly fail signature > verification if the notation is marked critical. That is RFC > compliant behavior. ... literally 'anything' is acceptable in the space, but with a minor difference, between gnupg and pgp as to the form of acceptablilty: gnupg requires a ':', or it interprets it as an 'improper header', but does not require any specific position for the ':', as long as it is anywhere on the same line. {in this message, the ':' after the word 'version' has been omitted, but the signature verifies ok, because there is a ':' in the emoticon of the version line.} this message has a collection of the common notations, as well as an 'anything' notation. for purposes of uniformity and avoidance of confusion, can gnupg allow the absence of the ':' ? with Respect, vedaal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: OpenPGP {combined GnuPG/PGP :) } Comment: { Acts of Kindness better the World, and protect the Soul } Comment: KeyID: 0x6A05A0B785306D25 Comment: Fingerprint: 96A6 5F71 1C43 8423 D9AE 02FD A711 97BA Charset: Ancient Klingon ;) Message id: only for those who care to know ;) Anything: really 'anything' ;) iQEVAwUBPcaVK2oFoLeFMG0lAQPd4wf7BrAQkVxB/6NI04XmAmkBxfXiYhgZuqBa 9PXpKpgJqMilPmhQtcQbOcULyMNpjsICmq9OMcJommFE0SEnCmHqWRw56DiPeCXt JUqHSgC5PTVDjG0XdFyPSzta+sDqtW8kop1FtqP0c0Gk1UA67noIqHROKKad3KoI /2fMcnH7gRGsowv+oXDYcEDYiY8MD7yofDs4xhZRlV3KiTJypRytEXuB94qV8VeZ 1uaXqGDw++3HnxR23wi7EUE9WubRWJudEO7rRSv5f5UT+lfriVebk0N6QdASp6pW ANyT936jrN4hexKqKHllG4+2G0kuaVPeXR59pnXJJE5EraU7TCDaEA== =mLwM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 4 11:06:47 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19793 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:06:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA4G0tE07637 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:00:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2.lok.com (root@compute2.lok.com [63.240.72.19]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA4G0sW07632 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:00:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2 (vedaal@localhost.my.domain [127.0.0.1]) by compute2.lok.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gA4G0r5j002856 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:00:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211041600.gA4G0r5j002856@compute2.lok.com> From: vedaal@lok.com To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? X-LokTek-Version: v2.3.3 Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:00:52 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 David wrote: > 2440bis specifies the IETF space as anything without a '@' sign > in it, so "COMMENT" would be a perfectly valid notation tag. ... > > Lastly, does anyone happen to know whether/how PGP8 supports >notations? > > Silently ignores them, though it does properly fail signature > verification if the notation is marked critical. That is RFC > compliant behavior. ... literally 'anything' is acceptable in the space, but with a minor difference, between gnupg and pgp as to the form of acceptablilty: gnupg requires a ':', or it interprets it as an 'improper header', but does not require any specific position for the ':', as long as it is anywhere on the same line. {in this message, the ':' after the word 'version' has been omitted, but the signature verifies ok, because there is a ':' in the emoticon of the version line.} this message has a collection of the common notations, as well as an 'anything' notation. for purposes of uniformity and avoidance of confusion, can gnupg allow the absence of the ':' ? with Respect, vedaal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version OpenPGP {combined GnuPG/PGP :) } Comment: { Acts of Kindness better the World, and protect the Soul } Comment: KeyID: 0x6A05A0B785306D25 Comment: Fingerprint: 96A6 5F71 1C43 8423 D9AE 02FD A711 97BA Charset: Ancient Klingon ;) Message id: only for those who care to know ;) Anything: really 'anything' ;) iQEVAwUBPcaVK2oFoLeFMG0lAQPd4wf7BrAQkVxB/6NI04XmAmkBxfXiYhgZuqBa 9PXpKpgJqMilPmhQtcQbOcULyMNpjsICmq9OMcJommFE0SEnCmHqWRw56DiPeCXt JUqHSgC5PTVDjG0XdFyPSzta+sDqtW8kop1FtqP0c0Gk1UA67noIqHROKKad3KoI /2fMcnH7gRGsowv+oXDYcEDYiY8MD7yofDs4xhZRlV3KiTJypRytEXuB94qV8VeZ 1uaXqGDw++3HnxR23wi7EUE9WubRWJudEO7rRSv5f5UT+lfriVebk0N6QdASp6pW ANyT936jrN4hexKqKHllG4+2G0kuaVPeXR59pnXJJE5EraU7TCDaEA== =mLwM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Nov 4 11:11:06 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19932 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:11:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA4G23w07719 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfw.transarc.ibm.com (xfw.transarc.ibm.com [192.54.226.51]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA4G21W07714 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:02:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (mailhost.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.192.124]) by xfw.transarc.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA21906 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:47:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mwyoung (dhcp-193-40.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.193.240]) by mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with SMTP id LAA20511 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:01:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000f01c2841b$6e514b00$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> From: "Michael Young" To: References: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102124054.GA10309@jabberwocky.com> <000401c282bd$d4d5b3c0$c23fa8c0@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102235705.GA22874@jabberwocky.com> Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:01:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > 2440bis specifies the IETF space as anything without a '@' sign in it, > so "COMMENT" would be a perfectly valid notation tag. Of course, it's > not perfectly valid since that tag was never assigned by the IETF, but > it is a tag that the IETF *could* use. The IETF hasn't assigned any > tags yet, so any tag without a '@' in it is currently an invalid tag. I see... I had interpreted the "IETF name space" as an existing syntax defined by IETF, something like the DNS name space or the ASN/OID name space. David interprets it as a OpenPGP-specific name space, with no specific structure yet defined, reserved for assignment by the IETF/IANA. That's reasonable -- could one of the RFC authors confirm that this is the intention? > There is no restriction as to what comes before the '@' (except that > it is UTF-8) so a user can certainly use tags of the form > "loginname+tagname1@...", "loginname+tagname2@...", etc. It doesn't > have to be a valid email address, though it's nice if it is. Yes, this is a fine approach *if the domain owner approves*. (Note that "x+y@z" is a valid e-mail address in some domains. It usually reflects a login name "x", but it need not.) My point wasn't that a scheme couldn't be invented, simply that it's still really a "DNS" name space, not a "user" space. It's only a few dollars a year to own a domain name, though, so it's not a big deal. > I've actually been toying with the idea of disallowing any notation > name that doesn't have a "@" in it for GnuPG (with an override for > experts who presumably know what they are doing). Given that the IETF name space is completely unallocated, I'd offer another suggestion: change the RFC to reflect reality, and use the *presence* of special character to mark the "IETF name space". For example, tags starting with "$" could be the IETF space. (David's keyserver analysis could give us a good idea what characters haven't been used.) Let the space without either special character remain the free-for-all that it has become. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3 iQA/AwUBPcaZxFMkvpTT8vCGEQKeKgCgqZcxV9YL5e4QqV5jTs3IR1lpiSwAoOHP cFyMqoxFftltUs7Bh2PE4Udo =3p2d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 7 15:33:48 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10544 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:33:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA7KOZb22980 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:24:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA7KEcv22109; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:14:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08965 for <1timer>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:11:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211072011.PAA08965@ietf.org> From: The IESG To: All IETF Working Groups: ; Subject: Note Well Statement x-msg: NoteWell Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:11:40 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: From time to time, especially just before a meeting, this statement is to be sent to each and every IETF working group mailing list. =========================================================================== NOTE WELL All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, which grants to the IETF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statements include verbal statements in IETF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to - the IETF plenary session, - any IETF working group or portion thereof, - the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, - the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, - any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, - the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function Statements made outside of an IETF meeting, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not subject to these provisions. From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 13 06:08:54 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA27477 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gADAeOY24012 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 02:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gADAeJg24006 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 02:40:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [212.227.126.161] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18BuwN-0003b2-00; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:40:11 +0100 Received: from [62.155.158.247] (helo=coruscant.does-not-exist.org) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18BuwM-0005nj-00; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:40:10 +0100 Received: by coruscant.does-not-exist.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C82E52ED13; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:37:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:37:20 +0100 From: Thomas Roessler To: Michael Young Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? Message-ID: <20021113103720.GS18176@coruscant.does-not-exist.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Young , ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102124054.GA10309@jabberwocky.com> <000401c282bd$d4d5b3c0$c23fa8c0@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102235705.GA22874@jabberwocky.com> <000f01c2841b$6e514b00$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000f01c2841b$6e514b00$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> Organization: Palpatine's office. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 2002-11-04 11:01:23 -0500, Michael Young wrote: >I see... I had interpreted the "IETF name space" as an existing >syntax defined by IETF, something like the DNS name space or the >ASN/OID name space. David interprets it as a OpenPGP-specific >name space, with no specific structure yet defined, reserved for >assignment by the IETF/IANA. That's reasonable -- could one of the >RFC authors confirm that this is the intention? Since I was the author of that particular language: Yes, that's the intention. Everything which has an @ character in it is for users (since the DNS gives us a handy, decentralized way of avoiding chaos and collisions in this case). If the @ character is not in there, there's right now no trivial way of avoiding collisions - short of registering notation tags with IANA (writing RFCs on them). BTW, the idea was stolen from one of the SSH internet-drafts. -- Thomas Roessler From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Nov 20 23:11:23 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11059 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:11:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gAL40DR29389 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:00:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from s9.bn3.com ([64.41.141.252]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id gAL40Bg29385 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:00:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 28656 invoked by uid 508); 21 Nov 2002 04:01:37 -0000 Date: 21 Nov 2002 04:01:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20021121040137.28655.qmail@s9.bn3.com> From: To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: about cast cfb64 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: /* The data is encrypted in CFB mode, with a CFB shift size equal to the cipher's block size. The Initial Vector (IV) is specified as all zeros. Instead of using an IV, OpenPGP prefixes a 10-octet string to the data before it is encrypted. The first eight octets are random, and the 9th and 10th octets are copies of the 7th and 8th octets, respectively. After encrypting the first 10 octets, the CFB state is resynchronized if the cipher block size is 8 octets or less. The last 8 octets of ciphertext are passed through the cipher and the block boundary is reset. */ this paragraph is come from rfc2440, now if i have the session key and the ciphertext, how can i decrypt it? below is what i have tried, but it does not work. after the first call CAST_cfb64_encrypt, i can get the right 10 octet, but the second is not right, where do i make some mistakes? my environment is win2k+vc6.0+openssl thanks regards CAST_KEY castkey; unsigned char out[128], ivec[8]; int num=0; memset(out, '\0', 128); memset(ivec, '\0', 8); CAST_set_key(&castkey, 16, sessionkey); CAST_cfb64_encrypt(cipher, out, 10, &castkey, ivec, &num, CAST_DECRYPT); num = 0; memset(out, '\0', 128); CAST_cfb64_encrypt(cipher+10, out, len-10,&castkey, cipher+2, &num, CAST_DECRYPT); ________________ USTC Alumni Email System, http://mail.ustc.edu, FREE Signup. From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Nov 21 13:28:16 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14501 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:28:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gALIFXA21862 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:15:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfw.transarc.ibm.com (xfw.transarc.ibm.com [192.54.226.51]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gALIFTg21858 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:15:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (mailhost.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.192.124]) by xfw.transarc.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22466 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:01:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mwyoung (dhcp-193-40.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.193.240]) by mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with SMTP id NAA11721 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:15:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000001c29189$e7820480$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> From: "Michael Young" To: References: <20021121040137.28655.qmail@s9.bn3.com> Subject: Re: about cast cfb64 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:05:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The OpenSSL CAST CFB code is not handling the initialization vector the way you want for partial-block lengths. They don't do a CFB "shift" for the partial block, but you want one. After 10 bytes have been en/de-crypted, bytes 2-9 of the ciphertext should appear in the "feedback register" (called the "initialization vector" here), in that order. That is, "ivec[0]" should contain "ciphertext[2]". Unfortunately, it looks like their CFB code does not "shift" the feedback register. It leaves "ciphertext[2]" in "ivec[2]", and so forth, so that ciphertext[9] ends up in "ivec[1]". This is not necessarily wrong, it's just not what you want. They may want to be able to feed material piecemeal without shifting. For OpenPGP, you need the shift. So, you need to shift "ivec" around 2 bytes. Alternatively, you could implement your own CFB support based on the underlying CAST_encrypt function. Good luck. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3 iQA/AwUBPd0gflMkvpTT8vCGEQIcxACgtf3jYK2pAzs/YG/44IU5ndBBI8QAoO75 A0hGFJfH11+EvKHIP8WYQND5 =z8FS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gALIFXA21862 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:15:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfw.transarc.ibm.com (xfw.transarc.ibm.com [192.54.226.51]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gALIFTg21858 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:15:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (mailhost.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.192.124]) by xfw.transarc.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id NAA22466 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:01:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mwyoung (dhcp-193-40.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.193.240]) by mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with SMTP id NAA11721 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:15:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000001c29189$e7820480$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> From: "Michael Young" To: References: <20021121040137.28655.qmail@s9.bn3.com> Subject: Re: about cast cfb64 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:05:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The OpenSSL CAST CFB code is not handling the initialization vector the way you want for partial-block lengths. They don't do a CFB "shift" for the partial block, but you want one. After 10 bytes have been en/de-crypted, bytes 2-9 of the ciphertext should appear in the "feedback register" (called the "initialization vector" here), in that order. That is, "ivec[0]" should contain "ciphertext[2]". Unfortunately, it looks like their CFB code does not "shift" the feedback register. It leaves "ciphertext[2]" in "ivec[2]", and so forth, so that ciphertext[9] ends up in "ivec[1]". This is not necessarily wrong, it's just not what you want. They may want to be able to feed material piecemeal without shifting. For OpenPGP, you need the shift. So, you need to shift "ivec" around 2 bytes. Alternatively, you could implement your own CFB support based on the underlying CAST_encrypt function. Good luck. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3 iQA/AwUBPd0gflMkvpTT8vCGEQIcxACgtf3jYK2pAzs/YG/44IU5ndBBI8QAoO75 A0hGFJfH11+EvKHIP8WYQND5 =z8FS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gAL40DR29389 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:00:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from s9.bn3.com ([64.41.141.252]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id gAL40Bg29385 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:00:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 28656 invoked by uid 508); 21 Nov 2002 04:01:37 -0000 Date: 21 Nov 2002 04:01:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20021121040137.28655.qmail@s9.bn3.com> From: To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: about cast cfb64 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: /* The data is encrypted in CFB mode, with a CFB shift size equal to the cipher's block size. The Initial Vector (IV) is specified as all zeros. Instead of using an IV, OpenPGP prefixes a 10-octet string to the data before it is encrypted. The first eight octets are random, and the 9th and 10th octets are copies of the 7th and 8th octets, respectively. After encrypting the first 10 octets, the CFB state is resynchronized if the cipher block size is 8 octets or less. The last 8 octets of ciphertext are passed through the cipher and the block boundary is reset. */ this paragraph is come from rfc2440, now if i have the session key and the ciphertext, how can i decrypt it? below is what i have tried, but it does not work. after the first call CAST_cfb64_encrypt, i can get the right 10 octet, but the second is not right, where do i make some mistakes? my environment is win2k+vc6.0+openssl thanks regards CAST_KEY castkey; unsigned char out[128], ivec[8]; int num=0; memset(out, '\0', 128); memset(ivec, '\0', 8); CAST_set_key(&castkey, 16, sessionkey); CAST_cfb64_encrypt(cipher, out, 10, &castkey, ivec, &num, CAST_DECRYPT); num = 0; memset(out, '\0', 128); CAST_cfb64_encrypt(cipher+10, out, len-10,&castkey, cipher+2, &num, CAST_DECRYPT); ________________ USTC Alumni Email System, http://mail.ustc.edu, FREE Signup. Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gADAeOY24012 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 02:40:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.188]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gADAeJg24006 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 02:40:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from [212.227.126.161] (helo=mrelayng.kundenserver.de) by moutng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18BuwN-0003b2-00; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:40:11 +0100 Received: from [62.155.158.247] (helo=coruscant.does-not-exist.org) by mrelayng.kundenserver.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 18BuwM-0005nj-00; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:40:10 +0100 Received: by coruscant.does-not-exist.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C82E52ED13; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:37:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:37:20 +0100 From: Thomas Roessler To: Michael Young Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? Message-ID: <20021113103720.GS18176@coruscant.does-not-exist.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Young , ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102124054.GA10309@jabberwocky.com> <000401c282bd$d4d5b3c0$c23fa8c0@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102235705.GA22874@jabberwocky.com> <000f01c2841b$6e514b00$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000f01c2841b$6e514b00$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> Organization: Palpatine's office. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 2002-11-04 11:01:23 -0500, Michael Young wrote: >I see... I had interpreted the "IETF name space" as an existing >syntax defined by IETF, something like the DNS name space or the >ASN/OID name space. David interprets it as a OpenPGP-specific >name space, with no specific structure yet defined, reserved for >assignment by the IETF/IANA. That's reasonable -- could one of the >RFC authors confirm that this is the intention? Since I was the author of that particular language: Yes, that's the intention. Everything which has an @ character in it is for users (since the DNS gives us a handy, decentralized way of avoiding chaos and collisions in this case). If the @ character is not in there, there's right now no trivial way of avoiding collisions - short of registering notation tags with IANA (writing RFCs on them). BTW, the idea was stolen from one of the SSH internet-drafts. -- Thomas Roessler Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA7KOZb22980 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:24:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA7KEcv22109; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:14:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08965 for <1timer>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:11:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211072011.PAA08965@ietf.org> From: The IESG To: All IETF Working Groups: ; Subject: Note Well Statement x-msg: NoteWell Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:11:40 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: >From time to time, especially just before a meeting, this statement is to be sent to each and every IETF working group mailing list. =========================================================================== NOTE WELL All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, which grants to the IETF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statements include verbal statements in IETF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to - the IETF plenary session, - any IETF working group or portion thereof, - the IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, - the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, - any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, - the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function Statements made outside of an IETF meeting, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not subject to these provisions. Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA4G23w07719 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:02:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfw.transarc.ibm.com (xfw.transarc.ibm.com [192.54.226.51]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA4G21W07714 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:02:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (mailhost.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.192.124]) by xfw.transarc.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id KAA21906 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:47:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mwyoung (dhcp-193-40.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.193.240]) by mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with SMTP id LAA20511 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:01:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000f01c2841b$6e514b00$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> From: "Michael Young" To: References: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102124054.GA10309@jabberwocky.com> <000401c282bd$d4d5b3c0$c23fa8c0@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102235705.GA22874@jabberwocky.com> Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:01:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > 2440bis specifies the IETF space as anything without a '@' sign in it, > so "COMMENT" would be a perfectly valid notation tag. Of course, it's > not perfectly valid since that tag was never assigned by the IETF, but > it is a tag that the IETF *could* use. The IETF hasn't assigned any > tags yet, so any tag without a '@' in it is currently an invalid tag. I see... I had interpreted the "IETF name space" as an existing syntax defined by IETF, something like the DNS name space or the ASN/OID name space. David interprets it as a OpenPGP-specific name space, with no specific structure yet defined, reserved for assignment by the IETF/IANA. That's reasonable -- could one of the RFC authors confirm that this is the intention? > There is no restriction as to what comes before the '@' (except that > it is UTF-8) so a user can certainly use tags of the form > "loginname+tagname1@...", "loginname+tagname2@...", etc. It doesn't > have to be a valid email address, though it's nice if it is. Yes, this is a fine approach *if the domain owner approves*. (Note that "x+y@z" is a valid e-mail address in some domains. It usually reflects a login name "x", but it need not.) My point wasn't that a scheme couldn't be invented, simply that it's still really a "DNS" name space, not a "user" space. It's only a few dollars a year to own a domain name, though, so it's not a big deal. > I've actually been toying with the idea of disallowing any notation > name that doesn't have a "@" in it for GnuPG (with an override for > experts who presumably know what they are doing). Given that the IETF name space is completely unallocated, I'd offer another suggestion: change the RFC to reflect reality, and use the *presence* of special character to mark the "IETF name space". For example, tags starting with "$" could be the IETF space. (David's keyserver analysis could give us a good idea what characters haven't been used.) Let the space without either special character remain the free-for-all that it has become. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3 iQA/AwUBPcaZxFMkvpTT8vCGEQKeKgCgqZcxV9YL5e4QqV5jTs3IR1lpiSwAoOHP cFyMqoxFftltUs7Bh2PE4Udo =3p2d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA4G0tE07637 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:00:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2.lok.com (root@compute2.lok.com [63.240.72.19]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA4G0sW07632 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:00:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2 (vedaal@localhost.my.domain [127.0.0.1]) by compute2.lok.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gA4G0r5j002856 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:00:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211041600.gA4G0r5j002856@compute2.lok.com> From: vedaal@lok.com To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? X-LokTek-Version: v2.3.3 Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:00:52 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 David wrote: > 2440bis specifies the IETF space as anything without a '@' sign > in it, so "COMMENT" would be a perfectly valid notation tag. ... > > Lastly, does anyone happen to know whether/how PGP8 supports >notations? > > Silently ignores them, though it does properly fail signature > verification if the notation is marked critical. That is RFC > compliant behavior. ... literally 'anything' is acceptable in the space, but with a minor difference, between gnupg and pgp as to the form of acceptablilty: gnupg requires a ':', or it interprets it as an 'improper header', but does not require any specific position for the ':', as long as it is anywhere on the same line. {in this message, the ':' after the word 'version' has been omitted, but the signature verifies ok, because there is a ':' in the emoticon of the version line.} this message has a collection of the common notations, as well as an 'anything' notation. for purposes of uniformity and avoidance of confusion, can gnupg allow the absence of the ':' ? with Respect, vedaal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version OpenPGP {combined GnuPG/PGP :) } Comment: { Acts of Kindness better the World, and protect the Soul } Comment: KeyID: 0x6A05A0B785306D25 Comment: Fingerprint: 96A6 5F71 1C43 8423 D9AE 02FD A711 97BA Charset: Ancient Klingon ;) Message id: only for those who care to know ;) Anything: really 'anything' ;) iQEVAwUBPcaVK2oFoLeFMG0lAQPd4wf7BrAQkVxB/6NI04XmAmkBxfXiYhgZuqBa 9PXpKpgJqMilPmhQtcQbOcULyMNpjsICmq9OMcJommFE0SEnCmHqWRw56DiPeCXt JUqHSgC5PTVDjG0XdFyPSzta+sDqtW8kop1FtqP0c0Gk1UA67noIqHROKKad3KoI /2fMcnH7gRGsowv+oXDYcEDYiY8MD7yofDs4xhZRlV3KiTJypRytEXuB94qV8VeZ 1uaXqGDw++3HnxR23wi7EUE9WubRWJudEO7rRSv5f5UT+lfriVebk0N6QdASp6pW ANyT936jrN4hexKqKHllG4+2G0kuaVPeXR59pnXJJE5EraU7TCDaEA== =mLwM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA4Fow506987 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:50:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2.lok.com (root@compute2.lok.com [63.240.72.19]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA4FovW06983 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:50:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from compute2 (vedaal@localhost.my.domain [127.0.0.1]) by compute2.lok.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id gA4Foj5j014322 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:50:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211041550.gA4Foj5j014322@compute2.lok.com> From: vedaal@lok.com To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? X-LokTek-Version: v2.3.3 Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 10:50:45 -0500 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 David wrote: > 2440bis specifies the IETF space as anything without a '@' sign > in it, so "COMMENT" would be a perfectly valid notation tag. ... > > Lastly, does anyone happen to know whether/how PGP8 supports >notations? > > Silently ignores them, though it does properly fail signature > verification if the notation is marked critical. That is RFC > compliant behavior. ... literally 'anything' is acceptable in the space, but with a minor difference, between gnupg and pgp as to the form of acceptablilty: gnupg requires a ':', or it interprets it as an 'improper header', but does not require any specific position for the ':', as long as it is anywhere on the same line. {in this message, the ':' after the word 'version' has been omitted, but the signature verifies ok, because there is a ':' in the emoticon of the version line.} this message has a collection of the common notations, as well as an 'anything' notation. for purposes of uniformity and avoidance of confusion, can gnupg allow the absence of the ':' ? with Respect, vedaal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: OpenPGP {combined GnuPG/PGP :) } Comment: { Acts of Kindness better the World, and protect the Soul } Comment: KeyID: 0x6A05A0B785306D25 Comment: Fingerprint: 96A6 5F71 1C43 8423 D9AE 02FD A711 97BA Charset: Ancient Klingon ;) Message id: only for those who care to know ;) Anything: really 'anything' ;) iQEVAwUBPcaVK2oFoLeFMG0lAQPd4wf7BrAQkVxB/6NI04XmAmkBxfXiYhgZuqBa 9PXpKpgJqMilPmhQtcQbOcULyMNpjsICmq9OMcJommFE0SEnCmHqWRw56DiPeCXt JUqHSgC5PTVDjG0XdFyPSzta+sDqtW8kop1FtqP0c0Gk1UA67noIqHROKKad3KoI /2fMcnH7gRGsowv+oXDYcEDYiY8MD7yofDs4xhZRlV3KiTJypRytEXuB94qV8VeZ 1uaXqGDw++3HnxR23wi7EUE9WubRWJudEO7rRSv5f5UT+lfriVebk0N6QdASp6pW ANyT936jrN4hexKqKHllG4+2G0kuaVPeXR59pnXJJE5EraU7TCDaEA== =mLwM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA2NvAm15308 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 15:57:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.130.129]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA2Nv8W15300 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 15:57:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gA2Nv5U23471 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:57:05 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 18:57:05 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? Message-ID: <20021102235705.GA22874@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102124054.GA10309@jabberwocky.com> <000401c282bd$d4d5b3c0$c23fa8c0@transarc.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000401c282bd$d4d5b3c0$c23fa8c0@transarc.ibm.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 05:18:53PM -0500, Michael Young wrote: > From: "David Shaw" > > There is no (simple) mechanism to register new tags. There is a > > rationale statement for this at the head of the RFC, under "IESG > > Note". Basically, the idea is that there can be subtle interactions > > with unrestricted extensions of the standard, so this is a way to > > force proposed extensions to go through the WG process to get wider > > consideration. > > The "subtle interactions" comment appears to be aimed at security > (cryptographic) issues. It makes less sense for clearly user-defined > content like notations. As long as the ownership of any given tag > is clear (by using well-defined name spaces), I don't see a problem. There can be subtle interactions even with non obviously cryptographic issues. For example, the PGP comment packet was dropped partially to avoid the possibility of a rogue implementation leaking information via that channel. Even the MessageID armor header has a restriction about how it is used to avoid the same problem. It's quite possible the barn door is already wide open on using notations to do the same thing though. But still, there isn't any problem with adding tags at any time for any purpose to the user name space. That's what it's there for. Only tags in the IETF name space needs some review before the tag is accepted. > But, this was a sidelight to my main question, which was... > > > There are no notation tags in the IETF space yet. However, a few > > What *is* the IETF name space? What does it look like? Any tag that doesn't have a '@' sign in it is in the IETF name space. > > months ago, I pulled together a list of all notations used on keys on > > the keyserver net. Perhaps unsurprisingly, nobody used the user name > > space. By far the most common notation used (87%) was "COMMENT". > > By definition, any tag not in the user name space should be in the > IETF name space. If you say that there are none in this name space > yet, you must know something about the structure of the IETF name > space (to know that the existing tags don't fit). Could you give an > example of a valid name in the IETF space, and/or a reference to a > definition of the IETF space? 2440bis specifies the IETF space as anything without a '@' sign in it, so "COMMENT" would be a perfectly valid notation tag. Of course, it's not perfectly valid since that tag was never assigned by the IETF, but it is a tag that the IETF *could* use. The IETF hasn't assigned any tags yet, so any tag without a '@' in it is currently an invalid tag. > It certainly doesn't surprise me that there were no tags in the > user name space. It was only a few months ago that I noted that > GnuPG rejected names with "@" in them. (I suspect it was David > who fixed it. Thanks. :-) You're welcome :) The problem was that the notation naming scheme in GnuPG was originally written to follow 2440. The '@' scheme came in one of the 2440bis series. > I should also note that the "user" name space is not particularly > usable by ordinary folks. According to the RFC, the owner of > "name@foo.bar" is the owner of "foo.bar". Many users don't own domain > names; at best, they "own" an e-mail address or login name at an ISP. > Further, most own only one; even if the ISP delegated its space by > e-mail address (as the RFC loosely suggests), each user would have > only one tag. Calling it a "user" name space (rather than a "DNS" > name space) is misleading. There is no restriction as to what comes before the '@' (except that it is UTF-8) so a user can certainly use tags of the form "loginname+tagname1@...", "loginname+tagname2@...", etc. It doesn't have to be a valid email address, though it's nice if it is. > So, it doesn't surprise me that people have used simple, unstructured > tag names, either ignoring conflict or assuming that human > interpretation would be obvious and uncontroversial. I suspect that very few people even knew there were reserved names at all, since 2440 doesn't define this, and I doubt anyone using GnuPG reads 2440bis (or 2440 for that matter) before starting. ;) I've actually been toying with the idea of disallowing any notation name that doesn't have a "@" in it for GnuPG (with an override for experts who presumably know what they are doing). > Lastly, does anyone happen to know whether/how PGP8 supports notations? Silently ignores them, though it does properly fail signature verification if the notation is marked critical. That is RFC compliant behavior. David -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA2MJa211045 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 14:19:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net (smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net [64.8.50.39]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA2MJNW11023 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 14:19:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mwyoung ([24.48.51.230]) by smtprelay7.dc2.adelphia.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 smtprelay7 Dec 7 2001 09:58:59) with SMTP id H4YZC400.LA9 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 17:19:16 -0500 Message-ID: <000401c282bd$d4d5b3c0$c23fa8c0@transarc.ibm.com> From: "Michael Young" To: References: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> <20021102124054.GA10309@jabberwocky.com> Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 17:18:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 From: "David Shaw" > There is no (simple) mechanism to register new tags. There is a > rationale statement for this at the head of the RFC, under "IESG > Note". Basically, the idea is that there can be subtle interactions > with unrestricted extensions of the standard, so this is a way to > force proposed extensions to go through the WG process to get wider > consideration. The "subtle interactions" comment appears to be aimed at security (cryptographic) issues. It makes less sense for clearly user-defined content like notations. As long as the ownership of any given tag is clear (by using well-defined name spaces), I don't see a problem. But, this was a sidelight to my main question, which was... > There are no notation tags in the IETF space yet. However, a few What *is* the IETF name space? What does it look like? > months ago, I pulled together a list of all notations used on keys on > the keyserver net. Perhaps unsurprisingly, nobody used the user name > space. By far the most common notation used (87%) was "COMMENT". By definition, any tag not in the user name space should be in the IETF name space. If you say that there are none in this name space yet, you must know something about the structure of the IETF name space (to know that the existing tags don't fit). Could you give an example of a valid name in the IETF space, and/or a reference to a definition of the IETF space? It certainly doesn't surprise me that there were no tags in the user name space. It was only a few months ago that I noted that GnuPG rejected names with "@" in them. (I suspect it was David who fixed it. Thanks. :-) I should also note that the "user" name space is not particularly usable by ordinary folks. According to the RFC, the owner of "name@foo.bar" is the owner of "foo.bar". Many users don't own domain names; at best, they "own" an e-mail address or login name at an ISP. Further, most own only one; even if the ISP delegated its space by e-mail address (as the RFC loosely suggests), each user would have only one tag. Calling it a "user" name space (rather than a "DNS" name space) is misleading. So, it doesn't surprise me that people have used simple, unstructured tag names, either ignoring conflict or assuming that human interpretation would be obvious and uncontroversial. Lastly, does anyone happen to know whether/how PGP8 supports notations? Thanks again! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3 iQA/AwUBPcRPO1MkvpTT8vCGEQIQ6wCgo35xyTboHTK9wyawpD1xVxGwQ5oAnjh0 yjdusKPuOOIV+/UxwrQ4GQnW =pzew -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA2Cf0q05150 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 04:41:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.130.129]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA2CexW05146 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 04:40:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gA2Cesr14517 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Sat, 2 Nov 2002 07:40:54 -0500 Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 07:40:54 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Reference for "IETF name space"? Message-ID: <20021102124054.GA10309@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 06:01:01PM -0500, Michael Young wrote: > Section 5.2.3.16, Notation Data, explains that tags fall into one of two > name spaces: the "IETF name space" and a "user name space". > > What IETF name space is this? If it is the URN namespace for IETF > documents, described by RFC2648, how is it applied here? If it's > something else, could someone provide me a reference? Further, > could someone offer an example of a notation tag in the IETF space? There is no (simple) mechanism to register new tags. There is a rationale statement for this at the head of the RFC, under "IESG Note". Basically, the idea is that there can be subtle interactions with unrestricted extensions of the standard, so this is a way to force proposed extensions to go through the WG process to get wider consideration. There are no notation tags in the IETF space yet. However, a few months ago, I pulled together a list of all notations used on keys on the keyserver net. Perhaps unsurprisingly, nobody used the user name space. By far the most common notation used (87%) was "COMMENT". David -- David Shaw | dshaw@jabberwocky.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gA1N1mn03276 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:01:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfw.transarc.ibm.com (xfw.transarc.ibm.com [192.54.226.51]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gA1N1kW03272 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:01:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (mailhost.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.192.124]) by xfw.transarc.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id RAA25240 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:47:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from mwyoung (dhcp-193-40.transarc.ibm.com [9.38.193.240]) by mailhost.transarc.ibm.com (8.8.0/8.8.0) with SMTP id SAA07514 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:01:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006e01c281fa$8ccdcd60$f0c12609@transarc.ibm.com> From: "Michael Young" To: Subject: Reference for "IETF name space"? Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:01:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Section 5.2.3.16, Notation Data, explains that tags fall into one of two name spaces: the "IETF name space" and a "user name space". What IETF name space is this? If it is the URN namespace for IETF documents, described by RFC2648, how is it applied here? If it's something else, could someone provide me a reference? Further, could someone offer an example of a notation tag in the IETF space? Back in 1999, Thomas Roessler suggested > Note: New notation data names in the IETF name space may be > registered by sending e-mail to > . The listing of current > values may be obtained by sending e-mail to > . This doesn't seem to have happened. Is there another registry, or is this just a free-for-all? Thanks for any information you can provide! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3 iQA/AwUBPcMHmVMkvpTT8vCGEQLu+ACgh3ccll1DisjC0uDDyUYd9ji5RogAnAwq x2kotpp4akgncSZmI3mqSpcV =RQTY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----