From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 19 17:12:31 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13656 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:12:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9JKq1qg039053; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:52:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9JKq18H039052; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:52:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9JKpx4B039024 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:52:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9JKpd226165; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:51:50 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:53:26 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Status of RFC2440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What is the status of the OpenPGP draft? I've been asked to speak at an Identity conference and while I was musing on the unsuitability of x.509/PKI for identity, it occurred to me that one of the barriers is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas x.509 is. Institutions put great store on standards (rightly or wrongly). Also, the "PGP" name is considered somewhat to be loony in many staid quarters. It would be thus doubly good to have a completed spec, so that we could say that a system conformed to RFC 2440, an internet identity architecture standard. (With all the normal marketing caveats of course!) iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 20 04:06:35 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA08862 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:06:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9K7c1K3083870; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9K7c1A6083869; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9K7bxbr083817 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:38:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKB48-00060g-00 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:39:24 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKAvE-0007ra-Qj; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:30:12 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:30:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:53:26 +0100") Message-ID: <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:53:26 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > What is the status of the OpenPGP draft? IIRC, the latest draft has expired and is thus not anymore available from the usual places. > it occurred to me that one of the barriers > is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas > x.509 is. I just checked the rfc-index and both, OpenPGP (rfc2440) and X.509 PKIX profile (rfc3280), are in PROPOSED STANDARD status. You don't want to call plain ISO X.509 a practically useful standard without specifying a profile. We talked about moving to DRAFT status since mid 1999 with no result though. Derek, any new plans on moving forward? Shalom-Salam, Werner From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 20 05:44:44 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15444 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9K9MF66028812; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:22:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9K9MF3M028811; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:22:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9K9MDkR028786 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:22:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9K9Lp229548; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:22:02 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <41762E8B.8050607@systemics.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:23:23 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Werner Koch CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> In-Reply-To: <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Werner Koch wrote: > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:53:26 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > > >>What is the status of the OpenPGP draft? > > > IIRC, the latest draft has expired and is thus not anymore available > from the usual places. > > >>it occurred to me that one of the barriers >>is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas >>x.509 is. > > > I just checked the rfc-index and both, OpenPGP (rfc2440) and X.509 > PKIX profile (rfc3280), are in PROPOSED STANDARD status. You don't > want to call plain ISO X.509 a practically useful standard without > specifying a profile. Me, I wouldn't call x.509 practically useful in any contexts ;-) But the point is that it has the market, it has the support of all the major players, whereas rfc2440 has not, and it has the ISO label. All of these things equate to "it's a standard" without much drilling down into what that means. > We talked about moving to DRAFT status since mid 1999 with no result > though. Derek, any new plans on moving forward? Yes, I don't understand it. As I understand, about a year ago it was feature frozen, and a list of issues had to be cleaned up. iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 20 06:22:27 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA17050 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:22:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KA2svM046681; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:02:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KA2s2A046675; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:02:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KA2oLl046645 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:02:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKDKO-0002AB-00 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:04:20 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKDC7-0000qR-C2; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:47 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <41762E8B.8050607@systemics.com> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <41762E8B.8050607@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:23:23 +0100") Message-ID: <87vfd5k924.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:23:23 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > the market, it has the support of all the major > players, whereas rfc2440 has not, and it has the > ISO label. All of these things equate to "it's With respect to email encryption OpenPGP is the standard protocol most people want to go with because it is kown to work. At least this is what I hear from companies looking into ways to encrypt email. I only MS Outlook would allow to set the content-type explicitly - to implement PGP/MIME - the remaining deployment problem would be solvable. Shalom-Salam, Werner From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 20 06:59:38 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21382 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:59:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KAauwM064838; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:36:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KAauF4064837; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KAasW5064823 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:36:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9KAaX229810; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:36:44 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <4176400C.7080506@systemics.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:38:04 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Werner Koch CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <41762E8B.8050607@systemics.com> <87vfd5k924.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> In-Reply-To: <87vfd5k924.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:23:23 +0100, Ian Grigg said: >>the market, it has the support of all the major >>players, whereas rfc2440 has not, and it has the >>ISO label. All of these things equate to "it's > > > With respect to email encryption OpenPGP is the standard protocol most > people want to go with because it is kown to work. At least this is > what I hear from companies looking into ways to encrypt email. Oh, indeed. BTW, do you have any statistics on that? It would be very useful to get some hard or soft figures on it, because we continually come up against people believe their own world is the only world. But, my point is not about mail. Mail is but one application of OpenPGP. Another is identity, and a third is reputation. Both of these are relatively well served by the OpenPGP's web of trust, but they are being ignored. Meanwhile, a lot of companies have been trying for years to do identity in x.509 and failing dismally because of the constraints in that technology, and I don't think it is even possible to do reputation in x.509. > I only MS Outlook would allow to set the content-type explicitly - to > implement PGP/MIME - the remaining deployment problem would be > solvable. There's a lot wrong with Internet mail programs. I normally start with "why o why is there no button to generate a self-signed x.509 key and start using it?" But, to underscore my earlier point, mail is not where it's at. Traffic is moving to chat, and there is a chance to re-engineer the comms architecture, as chat is still an open market with competing protocols. So not being standard is not a draw back. The only thing of importance is whether it works and deploys quickly, and OpenPGP has a much better chance of that than any alternate. iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 20 08:09:39 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26103 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:09:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KBlqjq094606; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:47:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KBlqan094605; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:47:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KBloFj094591 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:47:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKExz-0005nV-00 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:49:19 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKEpL-0000v9-V4; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:40:24 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <41762E8B.8050607@systemics.com> <87vfd5k924.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <4176400C.7080506@systemics.com> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:40:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4176400C.7080506@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:38:04 +0100") Message-ID: <87oeixk47s.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:38:04 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > Oh, indeed. BTW, do you have any statistics on that? Sorry no. I have not seen that companies publically announce that they now use encryption for their communication; probably because everyone would expects that communication is held confidential. > a third is reputation. Both of these are relatively > well served by the OpenPGP's web of trust, but they > are being ignored. Meanwhile, a lot of companies There are no widely used applications to support OpenPGP for that. I know one TLS implementaion capable of using OpenPGP keys but the usual web clients don't support it. It would be easy to use this with ssh and I expect to see it in the near future. > normally start with "why o why is there no button to > generate a self-signed x.509 key and start using it?" Even worse: My jabber client complains about self-signed certificates instead of displaying its fingerprint once for verification. > But, to underscore my earlier point, mail is not where > it's at. Traffic is moving to chat, and there is a > chance to re-engineer the comms architecture, as chat Although I don't like chat things very much, you are probably right. Salam-Shalom, Werner From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 20 14:37:21 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08027 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:37:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KI4OEl092366; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KI4O4Y092365; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KI4NP9092357 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:04:10 -0700 Received: from [63.73.97.188] ([63.73.97.188]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:04:09 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <38C01616-22C2-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org, Ian Grigg From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:02:35 -0700 To: Werner Koch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> What is the status of the OpenPGP draft? > > IIRC, the latest draft has expired and is thus not anymore available > from the usual places. > Sorry. I just sent out my latest version as bis-12. What's left, to my mind, is for me to go and fully deprecate V3 keys / MD5. When I last looked at open issues with Derek, I'd put in words for all issues anyone had where there was something actionable. After that, as far as I'm concerned, we can put this into real last call. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 20 14:56:46 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10927 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KIV5vM098942; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:31:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KIV563098941; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:31:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KIV39u098934 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:31:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9KIUX231777; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:30:44 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <4176AF25.7000108@systemics.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:32:05 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas CC: Werner Koch , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <38C01616-22C2-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <38C01616-22C2-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon, Excellent news! can you post a URL for us when it is up there. Thanks, iang Jon Callas wrote: > Sorry. I just sent out my latest version as bis-12. > > What's left, to my mind, is for me to go and fully deprecate V3 keys / > MD5. When I last looked at open issues with Derek, I'd put in words for > all issues anyone had where there was something actionable. After that, > as far as I'm concerned, we can put this into real last call. Yes, kill the V3. Less is better. iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 20 14:59:32 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11300 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:59:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KIY8oj099622; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:34:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KIY8Hb099621; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:34:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KIY7xn099614 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:34:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:34:10 -0700 Received: from [63.73.97.188] ([63.73.97.188]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:34:08 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <869AB37A-22C6-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:33:24 -0700 To: Ian Grigg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I've been asked to speak at an Identity > conference and while I was musing on the > unsuitability of x.509/PKI for identity, > it occurred to me that one of the barriers > is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas > x.509 is. > Huh? OpenPGP isn't a standard? How? In the last couple of years there's been a resurgence of OpenPGP-based systems. I see new ones coming on line (usually in an email that says something like, "Is this a competitor of yours?") about at the rate of one every month or two, but I've gotten two of them this *week*. More than one of these new people have contributed here. If anything, OpenPGP is undergoing a renaissance right now. There are also other bits of ground breaking on further adoption that I can't talk about, but I can tell you that I don't see this pattern stopping. My products support both OpenPGP and X.509, and my official policy is to be format agnostic. However, I'll say that while X.509 is a "standard" it is a "standard" that you often have to make work by doing passive fingerprinting on the certs. You look at it, infer what software or CA created it, and special case the handling of the crypto system accordingly. I'm not complaining, merely stating. For anyone who goes to the trouble of walking the minefield of X.509 interoperability, this "standard" is a huge barrier to entry to competition. Unlike OpenPGP, where someone can knock off an interoperable system with a little bit of work (hacking, if necessary your own previous systems and others like the Perl module) and end up with something that works, X.509 takes *work* to make interoperate, and this is a huge boon for anyone who actually makes a living at this. Yes, yes, there are open source toolkits for X.509. I've used them. My conclusion was that those nice folks at GeoTrust provide a good service for the money, especially when I compute my own hourly rate and the fact that I could otherwise be doing something fun. Be sure to tell them that, when you talk about the superiority of "standards" to mere RFCs. :-) Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 20 22:20:06 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA11624 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:20:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9L218cu006892; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:01:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9L218ak006891; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:01:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sea.h2np.net (sea.h2np.net [220.110.1.194]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9L217fq006820 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:01:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hironobu@h2np.net) Received: from lax.h2np.net ([220.110.1.195] helo=mail.h2np.net) by sea.h2np.net with esmtp (H2NP Email Service (Exim 3.35)) id 1CKSGH-0008GW-00 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:01:05 +0900 From: Hironobu SUZUKI To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:33:24 MST." <869AB37A-22C6-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:01:04 +0900 Message-Id: Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd like to write my comments. "X.509 is a standard". It is true because we have no any alternative choice for CA service in OpenPGP. It is hard to make OpenPGP CA service because there is no trust model with certificate authority in OpenPGP. Current version of "Web of Trust" is not effective for trustworthiness. See "Web of Trust" in Debian project. It looks as like "autograph please", "I have more autographs than you". But "Web of Trust" model is very flexible way and it has potential to make OpenPGP based CA model. I understand that OpenPGP based CA service must be there also. Please note that OpenPGP based CA service must be not only business domain but also community domain. Organizations, companies, school, class, projects and any size of community may have their own CA. It should be compared with "Student ID", "Member ID" and "Backstage ID". It should not be compared with "Passport ID", "Nation ID" and "Social ID". Fair identification is necessary for our life. Today, X.509 with OpenPGP is practical solution but ultimate solution is to make OpenPGP's "Web of Trust" model with certificate authority for our community. X.509 is OK but I'd would like to seek "something new for OpenPGP". I have a plan to make "Trusted Public Keyserver" that can provide public keys that owner-allowed to open public. Many public keys in public keyserver have garbage signatures and many OpenPGP users put their "please use this" public key in their web site, not public keyserver. OpenPKSD-TPK will be my answer. Finish this plan, I'd like to design "Trust model with OpenPGP based CA" and to implement it. I believe that the diversity is required to survive, is not the first step to the chaos. Regards, --- Hironobu SUZUKI (From Japan) E-Mail: hironobu @ h2np.net URL: http://h2np.net URL: http://openpksd.org From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 21 10:56:41 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09921 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LEWows000291; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9LEWoGF000290; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LEWmqg000274 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:32:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9LEWS204683; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:32:44 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <4177C907.2030405@systemics.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:34:47 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hironobu, Just some comments, while the list is quiet and awaiting the "last call!" You seem to be grasping on a definition of trust. OpenPGP does not define what the meaning of signatures from one user's key to another is. That is, if I sign your key, there is no meaning defined by the tech to what my signature should convey. That's because it is too difficult to do at that level. x.509/CA technologies try to do just that: define trust, and they fail miserably. They fail at defining trust for many many reasons, chief amongst which is that trust is a human quality that defies categorisation in bits and bytes. So in actuality your comments apply more to the x.509 and CA model: they are not effective for trust. They push something they call "trust" but its only relationship with the word we humans share is its spelling. Now recast to RFC2440 / OpenPGP. This technology is totally neutral to trust. It is neither effective nor ineffective - it simply doesn't define that. What it does do is provide a linking capability - from key to key - which is ideally aligned and suitable for mapping human, social and commerce patterns. (So, the web of trust is misnamed. It should be the web of links, or the web of relationships, or similar neutral terms.) Which is to say, if you have a vision of trust, you can build it in RFC2440. You won't be able to build it in x.509, because they already cast their "trust" in concrete and got it wrong. But, that's up to you - RFC2440 awaits your notions. Build and see if it works. I would however suggest that you not rely on the word "trust." That's a word that belongs in each and every person's head, not in tech. iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 21 11:17:17 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12123 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:17:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LEqHqC006219; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9LEqHpI006218; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LEqG9h006212 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:52:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9LEpt204765; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:52:01 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <4177CD97.2050803@systemics.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:54:15 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <869AB37A-22C6-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <869AB37A-22C6-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Callas wrote: > >> >> I've been asked to speak at an Identity >> conference and while I was musing on the >> unsuitability of x.509/PKI for identity, >> it occurred to me that one of the barriers >> is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas >> x.509 is. >> > > Huh? OpenPGP isn't a standard? How? Specifically (bearing in mind the emphasis outlined below on mindspace) we lack the completed RFC. That will be a big help. > In the last couple of years there's been a resurgence of OpenPGP-based > systems. I see new ones coming on line (usually in an email that says > something like, "Is this a competitor of yours?") about at the rate of > one every month or two, but I've gotten two of them this *week*. More > than one of these new people have contributed here. If anything, OpenPGP > is undergoing a renaissance right now. There are also other bits of > ground breaking on further adoption that I can't talk about, but I can > tell you that I don't see this pattern stopping. Well that's encouraging news. Is there any way we can get a picture on how many ventures out there are building RFC2440 systems? That's an open question! It would be nice if there was a list or a forum of apps or a group of people doing stuff. (There is this group, which is strictly standards focused, and the cryptorights mailing list that I am aware of.) > My products support both OpenPGP and X.509, and my official policy is to > be format agnostic. However, I'll say that while X.509 is a "standard" > it is a "standard" that you often have to make work by doing passive > fingerprinting on the certs. You look at it, infer what software or CA > created it, and special case the handling of the crypto system > accordingly. I'm not complaining, merely stating. For anyone who goes to > the trouble of walking the minefield of X.509 interoperability, this > "standard" is a huge barrier to entry to competition. Unlike OpenPGP, > where someone can knock off an interoperable system with a little bit of > work (hacking, if necessary your own previous systems and others like > the Perl module) and end up with something that works, X.509 takes > *work* to make interoperate, and this is a huge boon for anyone who > actually makes a living at this. Everything you say makes sense. But when I was mentioning barriers to entry, I was specifically thinking in terms of the institutional mindset. x.509 to them is telecoms, ISO, Verisign, billion dollar companies, and all the associated mindspace and presence that goes with a standard. Whereas OpenPGP is .. what? A bunch of net geeks mucking around with crypto mail. When they're not fighting the government they're fighting each other... In those terms, which are the terms that any company over a thousand employees buys on, x.509 is a standard, and OpenPGP is a frontier toy. These people have no capability to drill down through the sales blurb into what the software does, or the crypto does. These are the people who say "it is a standard if IBM says it is a standard." > Yes, yes, there are open source toolkits for X.509. I've used them. My > conclusion was that those nice folks at GeoTrust provide a good service > for the money, especially when I compute my own hourly rate and the fact > that I could otherwise be doing something fun. > > Be sure to tell them that, when you talk about the superiority of > "standards" to mere RFCs. :-) Oh, don't get me wrong - my part is on how to fix the broken x.509 models / how the RFC2440 model has delivered. But I feel it is important to try and work out why it is that these big buyers simply don't see the alternates. One of the answers is their mindset that the x.509 thing is a standard. And there isn't any competition to that mindspace. Not yet. Hence my suggestion that we start calling it RFC2440 rather than OpenPGP. (I'm throwing that out there more to point people at the issues rather than expecting it to be a valuable idea.) iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 21 11:44:03 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14804 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:44:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LFS3gm016469; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9LFS3uw016468; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dogbert.ihtfp.org (me@DOGBERT.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.33]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LFS2ip016459 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from warlord@MIT.EDU) Received: (from warlord@localhost) by dogbert.ihtfp.org (8.12.9) id i9LFRcjI025790; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:27:38 -0400 To: Ian Grigg Cc: Jon Callas , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <869AB37A-22C6-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> <4177CD97.2050803@systemics.com> From: Derek Atkins Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:27:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4177CD97.2050803@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:54:15 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Ian Grigg writes: > Jon Callas wrote: >> >>> >>> I've been asked to speak at an Identity >>> conference and while I was musing on the >>> unsuitability of x.509/PKI for identity, >>> it occurred to me that one of the barriers >>> is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas >>> x.509 is. >>> >> Huh? OpenPGP isn't a standard? How? > > Specifically (bearing in mind the emphasis > outlined below on mindspace) we lack the completed > RFC. That will be a big help. Uhh, define "completed RFC". RFC2440 is completed, has been for several years. It's also an RFC. It will always be an RFC. RFC2440 will never change! There's the ongoing rfc2440bis work, which will hopefully complete soon and get turned into a new RFC with a new RFC number and will obsolete RFCs 1991 and 2440. But that does not obviate the fact that RFC 2440 is a published Proposed Standard on OpenPGP. So, your statement that "OpenPGP is not a standard" is clearly incorrect. -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 21 11:50:57 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15577 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:50:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LFZg5m018190; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:35:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9LFZgx7018189; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:35:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dogbert.ihtfp.org (me@DOGBERT.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.33]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LFZfnn018182 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:35:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from warlord@MIT.EDU) Received: (from warlord@localhost) by dogbert.ihtfp.org (8.12.9) id i9LFZhYY025917; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:35:43 -0400 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Request for Agenda Items for DC IETF From: Derek Atkins Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:35:42 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hi, I plan to request a 1hour slot at the DC IETF so we can wrap up 2440bis (hopefully). Anyone have any agenda items they'd like to discuss at the meeting? -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Oct 21 17:01:35 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25956 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LKk08s093651; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9LKk0Mv093650; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LKk0jV093643 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:02 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.235] ([63.251.255.25]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:01 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1A2DE99F-23A2-11D9-B29A-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Request for Agenda Items for DC IETF Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:45:11 -0700 To: Derek Atkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 21 Oct 2004, at 8:35 AM, Derek Atkins wrote: > > Hi, > > I plan to request a 1hour slot at the DC IETF so we can wrap up > 2440bis (hopefully). Anyone have any agenda items they'd like to > discuss at the meeting? > My opinion is that we don't need the slot. The few things we need to cover can (and should) be handled here. We're not the sort of group that needs face time. I am unlikely to be able to make it there, and anything that goes on there will have to happen here, too, so it just consumes more time to have the meeting. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 22 16:24:07 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08121 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9MK1A31094916; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:01:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9MK1AwM094915; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:01:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9MK19Xf094908 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:01:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dinaras@cnri.reston.va.us) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05187; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:01:12 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the An Open Specification for Pretty Good Privacy Working Group of the IETF. Title : OpenPGP Message Format Author(s) : J. Callas, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt Pages : 72 Date : 2004-10-22 This document is maintained in order to publish all necessary information needed to develop interoperable applications based on the OpenPGP format. It is not a step-by-step cookbook for writing an application. It describes only the format and methods needed to read, check, generate, and write conforming packets crossing any network. It does not deal with storage and implementation questions. It does, however, discuss implementation issues necessary to avoid security flaws. OpenPGP software uses a combination of strong public-key and symmetric cryptography to provide security services for electronic communications and data storage. These services include confidentiality, key management, authentication, and digital signatures. This document specifies the message formats used in OpenPGP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-10-22161703.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-10-22161703.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 22 18:23:49 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03140 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:23:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9MM6cI0024797; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:06:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9MM6cfu024794; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:06:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9MM6aoa024770 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:06:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9MM6M213685; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:06:33 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417984DB.9020506@systemics.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:08:27 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt References: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Expires Apr 20, 2004 > Title : OpenPGP Message Format > Author(s) : J. Callas, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt > Pages : 72 > Date : 2004-10-22 The version I just downloaded says on every page: Expires Apr 20, 2004 Shouldn't that be 2005? iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Sat Oct 23 11:12:53 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01579 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9NEpdHQ089208; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:51:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9NEpd7Z089207; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:51:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9NEpckT089201 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:51:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9NEpU217901; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:51:35 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417A705F.2010407@systemics.com> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:53:19 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: rfc2440bis-11 - 2 more comments References: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit #1. Minor comment 4.2 Packet Headers "... Thus, software that interoperates with those versions of PGP must only use old format packets. If interoperability is not an issue, either format may be used." Setting it up for a future deprecation of the old format may be useful. In which case, it could be advantageous to prefer the new format. Some example text: "... Thus, software that interoperates with those versions of PGP must only use old format packets. If interoperability is not an issue, THE NEW PACKET FORMAT IS PREFERRED." #2 Medium Comment 13. Security Considerations ... * The MD5 hash algorithm has been found to have weaknesses (pseudo-collisions in the compress function) that make some people deprecate its use. They consider the SHA-1 algorithm better. I think it's fair to say that since the last draft, we've moved on beyond that. I'd suggest that MD5 should be deprecated. and applications SHOULD use SHA1 and for compatibility MAY accept MD5. Or somesuch. Now, that's either easy to say or hard to say, depending on whether one thinks that SHA1 is wobbly or safe. But, on the whole, I don't think it should stop us deprecating MD5 at this point in time. If that means that the document has a sort of hole in it, then so be it, mark it and let's move on. Before going on to deal with this - can we agree or discuss whether we should deprecate MD5 at this point? If we agree to do so, then it's just a matter of scanning for MD5 and doing the switcheroo. iang Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Sun Oct 24 06:32:06 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA15747 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:32:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9OA9E9g020772; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:09:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9OA9E6W020771; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:09:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from p15139323.pureserver.info (silmor.de [217.160.219.75]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9OA9DMu020627 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:09:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from konrad@silmor.de) Received: from pd9e1feac.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.225.254.172] helo=zaphod.local) by p15139323.pureserver.info with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CLfJC-0007jD-00 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:09:06 +0200 From: Konrad Rosenbaum To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:08:34 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1407073.pKzWvVF2ZB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200410241208.35246@zaphod.konrad.silmor.de> Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --nextPart1407073.pKzWvVF2ZB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thursday 21 October 2004 04:01, Hironobu SUZUKI wrote: > "X.509 is a standard". It is true because we have no any alternative > choice for CA service in OpenPGP. It is hard to make OpenPGP CA > service because there is no trust model with certificate authority in > OpenPGP. Actually, all the necessary flags are there: section 5.2.3.12 Trust Signature (can be used for sub-CA signature). section 5/2.3.14 Revocation Key (necessary for some strictly hierachical CA= =20 models). section 5.2.3.20 Key Flags: 0x01 - this key may be used to certify other keys (read: Sub-CA) 0x02/0x04/0x08 - this key may be used to sign/encrypt data (read: user key) 0x10 - key escrow (minefield warning: partly patented by PGP Inc.) 0x80 - group key All that is left to do is: * implement support for this model in OpenPGP aware products * issue a list of trusted CAs (public keyring) suitable for your application Konrad --nextPart1407073.pKzWvVF2ZB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBe38jClt766LaIH0RAuDMAKCWUiNkOBEvRhSXQX7w35PcUi1jjACbBlHt jRJQHIgFw9i9KinQbZx6fTs= =0y/6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1407073.pKzWvVF2ZB-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 25 05:46:58 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06954 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9P9OJGl077210; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:24:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9P9OJWV077209; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:24:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rimon.safe-mail.net (rimon.safe-mail.net [212.199.206.179]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9P9OEKi077043 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:24:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from poiboy@SAFe-mail.net) Received: from poiboy@SAFe-mail.net by rimon.safe-mail.net with SAFe-mail (Exim 4.30) id 1CM151-0001DS-04 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:23:55 -0400 Received: from pc ([66.91.47.10]) by SAFe-mail.net with https Subject: private key binding clarification Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:23:54 +0100 From: poiboy@SAFe-mail.net To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org X-SMType: Regular X-SMRef: N1-2_Toh_y4 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SMSignature: z9krJOAOJTnuv7To2cQ54+D/eX3r62O4F0VdZlM2c+Oq5IYuAkNEqahPDjUv9KPE8UPXZcatj++mPPAV JF+P/DuJZdPX0W6A3GN5RcafnvQrxLs2kv88IrgwZ83a1gWcOBvwQfz1Mx4mp/sAJjfZNbSPhYcED5VG Svf5Gfqd9Mg= Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 5.2.4 p3: When a signature is made over a key, the hash data starts with the octet 0x99, followed by a two-octet length of the key, and then body of the key packet. With respect to bindings in private key messages, I think the last part should be changed to: '..length of the key, and then the public portion of the key packet body.' -PK From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 25 06:57:50 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12970 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:57:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PATUqd005580; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:29:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PATUXH005579; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:29:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PATTJQ005562 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:29:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9PATD203308; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:29:19 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:30:24 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: last call? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It has been mooted that we might be moving to a last call for changes on the draft bis-11 (perhaps only by me :-) Questions of procedure: 1. is this the case? Are we entering into a last call? And if not, how do we proceed to get there? 2. what is the process? Do we vote, do we pray or do we send bribes? 3. What is the procedure for doc changes within the process? None at all? Only severe security changes? Or something in between? (I note that there seem to be at least 2 changes that have to be made, being the year, I pointed out a few days ago, and the RFC # which apparently has to change.) 4. What's the story about the RFC number change? Is it possible to get an allocation at this point? iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 25 07:25:25 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA15303 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:25:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PBD5P8023039; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:13:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PBD5UG023038; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:13:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PBD4jx022960 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:13:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CM2mJ-0006jS-00 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:12:43 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CM2gO-0003Xc-0b; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:06:36 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:06:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:30:24 +0100") Message-ID: <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:30:24 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > 2. what is the process? Do we vote, do we pray or do we > send bribes? We need to get a rough consensus within this WG. > 4. What's the story about the RFC number change? Is it > possible to get an allocation at this point? That is the task of the RFC-Editor. 5. How to we get into Draft Standard status? We have talked for years about interoperability tests but we never actually did anything. AFAIK, there is no formal process for such a tests and I ask myself whether it is sufficient that the 2 oldest implementations (PGP and GnuPG) have shown over the years that they are quite good interoperable and that the last OpenPGP glitches have been sorted out with the last releases of both programs. We could probably come up with a collection of discussions as evidence to what we have tested during the development. Salam-Shalom, Werner From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 25 09:18:27 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24305 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PCmCpk034393; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:48:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PCmCZ8034392; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:48:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PCmAIi034385 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:48:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9PClt203873; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:48:00 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:49:06 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Werner Koch CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> In-Reply-To: <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Werner Koch wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:30:24 +0100, Ian Grigg said: >>2. what is the process? Do we vote, do we pray or do we >>send bribes? > > > We need to get a rough consensus within this WG. OK. I'd say it is good to go. With or without the handful of minor changes suggested in the last few days. Any other entries into consensual roughness? > 5. How to we get into Draft Standard status? > > We have talked for years about interoperability tests but we never > actually did anything. AFAIK, there is no formal process for such > a tests and I ask myself whether it is sufficient that the 2 oldest > implementations (PGP and GnuPG) have shown over the years that they > are quite good interoperable and that the last OpenPGP glitches > have been sorted out with the last releases of both programs. We > could probably come up with a collection of discussions as evidence > to what we have tested during the development. OK, I am guessing here that interoperability tests are required to get to draft standard. a. does that have a bearing on the RFC process for bis-11? Or is it independent? b. can someone summarise what has been said in the past about interoperability? c. without any thought or research, I'd suggest something like the following: i. a program for each implementation that produced an example of each type of message. ii. a program for each that reads the examples in i. iii. ideally, a service where an implementation can be put into random spit mode, where it churns out a squillion of these random messages of all forms, iv. again, a service where an implementation can process a squillion random messages. Then, take the two implementations and run them against each other. (This is how I test my stuff.) It has one particular hole in it, as it doesn't cover how an implementation deals with an illegal message. But that's a security issue not an implementation issue. d. or, anything else? iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 25 09:57:53 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26868 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PDfPQ8039961; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:41:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PDfPec039960; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:41:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PDfOnl039953 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:41:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20041025134121013009l359e>; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:41:21 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9PDexLO006046 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:40:59 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9PDf3r22136 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:41:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:41:03 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? Message-ID: <20041025134102.GA22085@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (93% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: >On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:49:06PM +0100, Ian Grigg wrote: > >We need to get a rough consensus within this WG. > > OK. I'd say it is good to go. With or without the handful > of minor changes suggested in the last few days. > > Any other entries into consensual roughness? I am not part of such a consensus. There were several minor open issues when the list went silent. I am traveling right now, but will repost them tomorrow. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 25 10:25:53 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29155 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:25:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PEAI5l041799; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:10:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PEAImj041798; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:10:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dogbert.ihtfp.org (me@DOGBERT.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.33]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PEAH4m041789 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:10:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from warlord@MIT.EDU) Received: (from warlord@localhost) by dogbert.ihtfp.org (8.12.9) id i9PEAEMr025356; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:10:14 -0400 To: Ian Grigg Cc: Werner Koch , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> From: Derek Atkins Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:10:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:49:06 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Ian Grigg writes: > Werner Koch wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:30:24 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > >>>2. what is the process? Do we vote, do we pray or do we >>>send bribes? >> We need to get a rough consensus within this WG. > > OK. I'd say it is good to go. With or without the handful > of minor changes suggested in the last few days. I'm glad you think it's good to go. Being the chair, it's my job to call a last call. It's not going to happen before the DC meeting. It might happen shortly after DC. I need to talk with Jon about it (I'll be seeing him in about two weeks). > Any other entries into consensual roughness? Yes, we need to hear from lots of other people in this group, too, and Jon and I need to go over the list of open issues and make sure they are all handled. Rough concensus is not one vocal person saying "we're done", it's the group as a whole saying "we're done". It's my job to listen to the group as a whole.. And part of that job is tuning _OUT_ those single vocal voices to make sure they aren't the only ones saying something. >> 5. How to we get into Draft Standard status? We have talked for >> years about interoperability tests but we never >> actually did anything. AFAIK, there is no formal process for such >> a tests and I ask myself whether it is sufficient that the 2 oldest >> implementations (PGP and GnuPG) have shown over the years that they >> are quite good interoperable and that the last OpenPGP glitches >> have been sorted out with the last releases of both programs. We >> could probably come up with a collection of discussions as evidence >> to what we have tested during the development. Unfortunately that is not sufficient.... > OK, I am guessing here that interoperability tests > are required to get to draft standard. Yes. However I believe 2440bis is still going to Proposed Standard. There are enough changes to warrant PS instead of DS. > a. does that have a bearing on the RFC process for > bis-11? Or is it independent? Moving to "draft standard" will be a secondary process once we finish 2440bis. > b. can someone summarise what has been said in the > past about interoperability? Irrelevant.. We need to work from the draft and perform an actual bakeoff with multiple implementations and go, feature by feature down the list in the draft and test each and every MUST/SHOULD in the draft. (I don't recall if you need to test MAY, but I think you do). Then you remove anything that hasn't been implemented, or you wait for it to get imeplemented, and publish yet another draft (with yet another RFC number) as a DS. > c. without any thought or research, I'd suggest > something like the following: > > i. a program for each implementation that produced > an example of each type of message. > > ii. a program for each that reads the examples in i. > > iii. ideally, a service where an implementation can > be put into random spit mode, where it churns out > a squillion of these random messages of all forms, > > iv. again, a service where an implementation can > process a squillion random messages. > > Then, take the two implementations and run them against > each other. (This is how I test my stuff.) It has one > particular hole in it, as it doesn't cover how an > implementation deals with an illegal message. But that's > a security issue not an implementation issue. > > d. or, anything else? c is certainly a workable test plan.. But let's get 2440bis finished before we start working on the bakeoff.. You're welcome to think about how to implement the bakeoff now but I'd suggest we keep that to a low simmer until we get the document through WGLC and into the hands of the IESG. > iang -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 25 14:04:11 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19520 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PHguof084062; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:42:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PHgu97084061; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:42:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PHgtgQ084055 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:42:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CM8re-0003Sl-00 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:42:38 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CM8la-0003wW-JH; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:36:22 +0200 To: Derek Atkins Cc: Ian Grigg , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:36:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Derek Atkins's message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:10:13 -0400") Message-ID: <87sm82n1ih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:10:13 -0400, Derek Atkins said: > Unfortunately that is not sufficient.... Is there an RFC defining the rules? FWIW, from the minutes of the 45th IETF OpenPGP WG on 14-July-1999: Advance to Draft, Collect $200 6 months have passed Requirements 2 implementations No IPR problems 6 months of experience JN: We have the experience but we do not have the interoperability fully checked. Suggest: Enumerating all the musts and publishing a document so implementors can easily see requirements for compliance. Finally, we can get implementors into a room for testing. Implementors' survey & results are at: noc.rutgers.edu/~mione/ietf/ietfopgp.html > Moving to "draft standard" will be a secondary process once we finish > 2440bis. :-( Okay, to make the later interop testing easier we should now really consider to make all PGP2 things OPTIONAL or even remove them. Werner From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Oct 25 14:38:07 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22463 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PIKvZF093775; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:20:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PIKvgj093774; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:20:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dogbert.ihtfp.org (me@DOGBERT.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.33]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PIKpW7093742 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from warlord@MIT.EDU) Received: (from warlord@localhost) by dogbert.ihtfp.org (8.12.9) id i9PIKqWF027570; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:20:52 -0400 To: Werner Koch Cc: Ian Grigg , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> <87sm82n1ih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> From: Derek Atkins Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:20:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87sm82n1ih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> (Werner Koch's message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:36:22 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Werner Koch writes: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:10:13 -0400, Derek Atkins said: > >> Unfortunately that is not sufficient.... > > Is there an RFC defining the rules? Good question. There is a document on the process in general, and "The Dao of the IETF". As for when a 'bis' document progresses to Draft or stays at Proposed tends to be a combination of time, effort, interop, and the amount of changes between the original and new document. In particular, to go from Proposed to Draft you generally can NOT add new features... > FWIW, from the minutes of the 45th IETF OpenPGP WG on 14-July-1999: > > Advance to Draft, Collect $200 > 6 months have passed > Requirements > 2 implementations > No IPR problems > 6 months of experience > > JN: We have the experience but we do not have the interoperability > fully checked. Suggest: Enumerating all the musts and publishing a > document so implementors can easily see requirements for > compliance. Finally, we can get implementors into a room for > testing. > > Implementors' survey & results are at: > noc.rutgers.edu/~mione/ietf/ietfopgp.html This was a long long time ago and under the previous chair, so my applogies for not being in the loop for this. >> Moving to "draft standard" will be a secondary process once we finish >> 2440bis. > > :-( > > Okay, to make the later interop testing easier we should now really > consider to make all PGP2 things OPTIONAL or even remove them. Eh, we can always drop that when we move to draft. Dropping "features" is perfectly reasonable in Proposed -> Draft. The main purpose of the interop testing is to see what's been implemented but also to weed out what cannot be implemented (or hasn't been implemented) and drop it from the draft _then_. So, if we're going to Proposed now, as I suspect we are, then there's no need to drop RFC1991 compatibility now. We can drop in 6ish months later when we go to Draft. > Werner -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 08:13:11 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA29504 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:13:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QBg5Vg077292; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:42:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QBg53M077291; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:42:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QBfxba077276 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:42:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9QBff210200; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:41:52 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417E380C.50405@systemics.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:42:04 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> <87sm82n1ih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Derek Atkins wrote: > Good question. There is a document on the process in general, > and "The Dao of the IETF". As for when a 'bis' document progresses > to Draft or stays at Proposed tends to be a combination of time, > effort, interop, and the amount of changes between the original > and new document. In particular, to go from Proposed to Draft > you generally can NOT add new features... As an observation, I don't think too many features have been added since 1999, so I can't see the problem with that. >>>Moving to "draft standard" will be a secondary process once we finish >>>2440bis. >> >>:-( >> >>Okay, to make the later interop testing easier we should now really >>consider to make all PGP2 things OPTIONAL or even remove them. I personally think this is an excellent idea, but... > Eh, we can always drop that when we move to draft. Dropping > "features" is perfectly reasonable in Proposed -> Draft. The main > purpose of the interop testing is to see what's been implemented but > also to weed out what cannot be implemented (or hasn't been > implemented) and drop it from the draft _then_. > > So, if we're going to Proposed now, as I suspect we are, then there's > no need to drop RFC1991 compatibility now. We can drop in 6ish months > later when we go to Draft. That's encouraging. Cryptix already made the decision several years back to drop pgp2 from our OpenPGP library. It just doesn't make sense to maintain separate paths in the code for such a small user base, our users are much better served with us spending that time on applications. iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 16:25:55 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13202 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QK5ITQ027496; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QK5Ic2027495; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QK5HG1027470 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5) for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:05 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:04 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <417E380C.50405@systemics.com> References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> <87sm82n1ih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417E380C.50405@systemics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <5354DD84-278A-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: last call? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:04 -0700 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't think we're ready for -11 to be last call. As I've said before, what's missing from -11 is removing / deprecating / etc. PGP 2 stuff. I haven't done that. That is in my opinion a requirement for last call. Beyond that, I know of no remaining open issues (from the last time Derek and I talked) for which there was something actionable. I mean by 'actionable' that while it might be true that X could be improved, there's no offered actual text. I'm loathe to go fix something that's suboptimal because there's a significant risk that my fix will be no better or even worse than the previous thing. I offer as an example of where I did this in the past is the whitespace and trimming issue in text and clearsigned signatures. I took a good complaint with a reasonably vague description of what should be changed and made a good guess. That good guess wasn't good enough. I don't want to repeat this. Restating again and tying in what Derek has said, he and I are going to be in the same place in a couple-three weeks. I believe there are no actionable open items. I believe that the remaining ones should be discarded, if for no other reason that they don't seem to be burning issues and finishing a new RFC takes precedence. (Modulo PGP 2 deprecation) I'm willing to be corrected or overruled on either of my beliefs by him or the working group. But in the interests of finishing, I'm going to assert these beliefs in a clear voice. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 16:29:17 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13731 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:29:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKEgkm028814; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QKEgN0028813; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKEgRa028795 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5) for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:39 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:39 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: last call? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:38 -0700 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I also want to issue my agreement with Werner on interoperability. Recent releases of GnuPG and PGP offer an existence proof of interoperability. (I'll go further and say that in the PGP cases, the interop problems we used to have were caused by our not upgrading pre-2440 behavior to be 2440-compliant.) The places where there *are* interop problems, they are caused by PGP 2 backwards compatibility. In 2440, backwards compatibility is encouraged but not required; it's a SHOULD. Since one of the remaining items is to demote that SHOULD, we don't need to consider these issues. When you do this, Ian's implementation is a third one. There is interoperability. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 16:37:00 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA14686 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:36:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKQLE0030490; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QKQLvO030489; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKQLGG030468 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:20 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:19 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <417A705F.2010407@systemics.com> References: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> <417A705F.2010407@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <4876E2D0-278D-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: rfc2440bis-11 - 2 more comments Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:14 -0700 To: Ian Grigg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 23 Oct 2004, at 7:53 AM, Ian Grigg wrote: > "... Thus, software that > interoperates with those versions of PGP must only use old format > packets. If interoperability is not an issue, THE NEW PACKET FORMAT > IS PREFERRED." > Done. > > > > #2 Medium Comment > > 13. Security Considerations > ... > * The MD5 hash algorithm has been found to have weaknesses > (pseudo-collisions in the compress function) that make some > people deprecate its use. They consider the SHA-1 algorithm > better. > > I think it's fair to say that since the last draft, we've > moved on beyond that. I'd suggest that MD5 should be deprecated. > and applications SHOULD use SHA1 and for compatibility MAY > accept MD5. Or somesuch. > This is part of what I've glibly characterized as PGP 2 deprecation. No argument here. > Now, that's either easy to say or hard to say, depending on > whether one thinks that SHA1 is wobbly or safe. But, on the > whole, I don't think it should stop us deprecating MD5 at this > point in time. If that means that the document has a sort of > hole in it, then so be it, mark it and let's move on. > > Before going on to deal with this - can we agree or discuss > whether we should deprecate MD5 at this point? If we agree > to do so, then it's just a matter of scanning for MD5 and > doing the switcheroo. > MD5 needs to be fully deprecated. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 16:59:33 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA20168 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:59:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKmOFN033269; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QKmOGI033268; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKmOxR033239 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004102620481601500mtl7ue>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:48:16 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QKlrLO002364 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:47:54 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QKlw914969 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:47:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:47:58 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] UTF-8 CRLF Message-ID: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: The last sentence of section 5.9 reads: Text data is stored with text endings (i.e. network-normal line endings). These should be converted to native line endings by the receiving software. Suggest to add: For the 'u' UTF8 literal packet, the minimal UTF8 encoding for the line endings SHOULD be used. That is, 0x0D 0x0A and not 0xC0 0x8D 0xC0 0x8A or other multibyte encodings. Rationale: This would be a kindness for those implementations that will not be doing UTF8->local conversions. Lacking a UTF8 decoder, those implementations cannot tell that "0xC0 0x8D" or other encodings is identical to 0x0D. If senders are careful in this regard, then the non-UTF8 implementations can at least get the line endings right. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 17:02:49 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21066 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:02:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKrDMQ033922; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:53:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QKrDwo033921; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:53:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKrD22033904 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:53:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20041026205312016000jp9de>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:53:12 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QKqnLO002455 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:52:50 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QKqsY15009 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:52:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:52:54 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] Some capitalization oddities Message-ID: <20041026205254.GC13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In section 5.2.3.23, "User ID" is rendered as "user Id". In sections 11.2, and 14, "key ID" is rendered as "key id". Not an earth shattering problem, but consistency is nice (everywhere else both of these items are consistent). David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 17:17:04 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA24760 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:17:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QL3T3W035590; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:03:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QL3Ti1035589; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:03:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from albireo.enyo.de (albireo.enyo.de [212.9.189.169]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QL3SGM035555 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:03:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fw@deneb.enyo.de) Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by albireo.enyo.de with esmtp id 1CMYTV-00007Z-CE for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:03:25 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CMYTT-0006Tn-33 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:03:23 +0200 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: [ISSUE] UTF-8 CRLF References: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> From: Florian Weimer Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:03:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> (David Shaw's message of "Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:47:58 -0400") Message-ID: <877jpdmbtw.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: * David Shaw: > The last sentence of section 5.9 reads: > > Text data is stored with text endings (i.e. network-normal > line endings). These should be converted to native line endings by > the receiving software. > > Suggest to add: > > For the 'u' UTF8 literal packet, the minimal UTF8 encoding for the > line endings SHOULD be used. That is, 0x0D 0x0A and not > 0xC0 0x8D 0xC0 0x8A or other multibyte encodings. This isn't valid UTF-8. A UTF-8 implementation MUST NOT decode these octets, but MUST flag an error. The most recent UTF-8 RFC is quite explicit in this regard. The UTF-8 issue I mentioned previously arises because Unicode has additional characters with line-ending semantics. There used to be a Unicode Technical Report on this topic, but it has been superseded by section 5.8 in Unicode 4.0: From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 17:23:10 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA26248 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLApLr036756; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:10:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLApCP036755; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:10:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLAolH036724 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004102621104501200fs3cge>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:10:45 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QLANLO002774 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:10:24 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QLASH15155 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:10:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:10:28 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] End-of-line whitespace in 0x01 sigs Message-ID: <20041026211028.GD13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In section 5.2.1, the text currently reads: 0x01: Signature of a canonical text document. This means the signer owns it, created it, or certifies that it has not been modified. The signature is calculated over the text data with its line endings converted to and trailing spaces (0x020) and tabs (0x09) removed. I suggest: 0x01: Signature of a canonical text document. This means the signer owns it, created it, or certifies that it has not been modified. The signature is calculated over the text data with its line endings converted to . This is the same as before but trailing whitespace is not removed. Note that I'm only talking about 0x01 signatures here. Cleartext signatures, and the trimming therein, are unchanged by this. Rationale: As much as possible, I feel that the data that you get out during decryption should be the same as the data that you put in to be encrypted, and the current behavior violates this. There are good reasons to do whitespace trimming for cleartext signatures (mail mangling, cut and paste mangling, etc). These reasons do not apply to an 0x01 signature as it is *not* cleartext - rather, it is protected inside the binary or ascii armor shell. In general, if we have no good reason to tamper with user supplied input, I think we should keep hands off. Speaking about PGP and GnuPG, there is no real impact to this change. The only messages that are affected are detached 0x01 signatures, and since those don't interoperate now (never did), we can hardly make it worse... David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 17:35:30 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28072 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:35:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLKEVF038400; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLKEfU038399; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLKDdc038372 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:20:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004102621201301300rcca8e>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:20:13 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QLJkLO002936 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:19:46 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QLJoP15232 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:19:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:19:50 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: [ISSUE] UTF-8 CRLF Message-ID: <20041026211950.GF13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> <877jpdmbtw.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877jpdmbtw.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 11:03:23PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * David Shaw: > > > The last sentence of section 5.9 reads: > > > > Text data is stored with text endings (i.e. network-normal > > line endings). These should be converted to native line endings by > > the receiving software. > > > > Suggest to add: > > > > For the 'u' UTF8 literal packet, the minimal UTF8 encoding for the > > line endings SHOULD be used. That is, 0x0D 0x0A and not > > 0xC0 0x8D 0xC0 0x8A or other multibyte encodings. > > This isn't valid UTF-8. A UTF-8 implementation MUST NOT decode these > octets, but MUST flag an error. The most recent UTF-8 RFC is quite > explicit in this regard. My mistake. I had missed that change. I withdraw the suggestion. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 17:37:58 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28505 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:37:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLQwT2039655; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLQwEl039654; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLQwJH039637 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004102621265701200g45une>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:26:57 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QLQZLO003063 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:26:35 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QLQdO15291 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:26:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:26:39 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] Call V4 V4 Message-ID: <20041026212639.GG13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Section 11.1 contains the sentence: In a key that has a main key and subkeys, the primary key MUST be a key capable of certification. Suggest to change this to: In a V4 key, the primary key MUST be a key capable of certification. Rationale: Frankly, because a while back, I read this as saying that if you have a V4 key without subkeys, then the key isn't necessarily required to be able to certify (and could thus be encrypt-only). Pretty much everyone else read the same thing as saying that the primary key must be capable of certification no matter what. Saying "V4" here instead of "key that has a main key and subkeys" cannot be misunderstood. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 17:44:20 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29621 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:44:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLUMn2040252; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:30:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLUMeo040248; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:30:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLULNA040230 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:30:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:30:21 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:30:21 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <28B72EE2-2796-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] UTF-8 CRLF Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:29:46 -0700 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Suggest to add: > > For the 'u' UTF8 literal packet, the minimal UTF8 encoding for the > line endings SHOULD be used. That is, 0x0D 0x0A and not > 0xC0 0x8D 0xC0 0x8A or other multibyte encodings. > Done. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 17:46:57 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00076 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:46:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLVq0l040560; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLVq4O040559; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLVqS5040523 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004102621314701500mtt26e>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:31:47 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QLVOLO003185 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:31:24 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QLVTF15344 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:31:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:31:29 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] Elgamal Signature remnants Message-ID: <20041026213129.GH13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Section 14 references Elgamal sign+encrypt keys, and section 17 has a citation for the Bleichenbacher paper about Elgamal signatures. Since we have dropped Elgamal signatures from the standard, these can probably both go. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 17:48:24 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00432 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLVgtg040525; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLVgtj040524; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLVget040506 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:42 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:41 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <20041026205254.GC13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026205254.GC13854@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <6D855F61-2796-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Some capitalization oddities Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:42 -0700 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 26 Oct 2004, at 1:52 PM, David Shaw wrote: > > In section 5.2.3.23, "User ID" is rendered as "user Id". > > In sections 11.2, and 14, "key ID" is rendered as "key id". > > Not an earth shattering problem, but consistency is nice (everywhere > else both of these items are consistent). > Done. From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 17:50:07 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA00600 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:50:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLdUeV042629; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLdUFl042628; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLdTOD042603 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:29 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:29 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <20041026211950.GF13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> <877jpdmbtw.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <20041026211950.GF13854@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <8454BA60-2797-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] UTF-8 CRLF Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:29 -0700 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 26 Oct 2004, at 2:19 PM, David Shaw wrote: > > My mistake. I had missed that change. I withdraw the suggestion. > And I backed out the change. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 18:05:47 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05030 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:05:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLZlI5041760; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLZlUJ041759; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLZkmL041700 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:45 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:45 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <20041026211028.GD13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026211028.GD13854@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] End-of-line whitespace in 0x01 sigs Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:43 -0700 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I made this change, and I'll also make a comment that's my opinion: If you have an implementation that's trimming, you don't have to change. If you think that trimming is a good idea, go right ahead. There is nothing in OpenPGP that says that an implementation can't make reasonable transformations on text. This includes trimming, but also things like reformatting paragraphs with line ends into paragraphs without. Your user base might howl, but that's between you and them. I hope this finally puts this to rest. I apologize to the working group for the whole mess. Jon On 26 Oct 2004, at 2:10 PM, David Shaw wrote: > > In section 5.2.1, the text currently reads: > > 0x01: Signature of a canonical text document. > This means the signer owns it, created it, or certifies that it > has not been modified. The signature is calculated over the > text data with its line endings converted to and > trailing spaces (0x020) and tabs (0x09) removed. > > I suggest: > > 0x01: Signature of a canonical text document. > This means the signer owns it, created it, or certifies that it > has not been modified. The signature is calculated over the > text data with its line endings converted to . > > This is the same as before but trailing whitespace is not removed. > Note that I'm only talking about 0x01 signatures here. Cleartext > signatures, and the trimming therein, are unchanged by this. > > Rationale: As much as possible, I feel that the data that you get out > during decryption should be the same as the data that you put in to be > encrypted, and the current behavior violates this. > > There are good reasons to do whitespace trimming for cleartext > signatures (mail mangling, cut and paste mangling, etc). These > reasons do not apply to an 0x01 signature as it is *not* cleartext - > rather, it is protected inside the binary or ascii armor shell. In > general, if we have no good reason to tamper with user supplied input, > I think we should keep hands off. > > Speaking about PGP and GnuPG, there is no real impact to this change. > The only messages that are affected are detached 0x01 signatures, and > since those don't interoperate now (never did), we can hardly make it > worse... > > David > From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 18:14:08 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA07511 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLsqGK045322; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:54:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLsq93045321; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:54:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLsqlO045298 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:54:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004102621545201300rdg8ie>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:54:52 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QLsTLO003637 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:54:29 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QLsXS15540 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:54:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:54:33 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Key size suggestions Message-ID: <20041026215433.GI13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: This is more of a question to the WG. I'll make a formal change suggestion if the folks here think it is warranted. 2440 came out in 1998, and included some general recommendations as to minimum key size: 768 bits for all of DSA, RSA, and Elgamal. Today, 6 years later, I doubt these values would be used, even as minimums. My intent is not to get into a discussion as to algorithm strength, and the best key length to use, etc, but to ask if *any* static recommendations as to key length are useful. I expect the new RFC will be around for a good long time, and over that lifespan, the state of the art in attacks will undoubtedly improve. The draft already contains a note in the security considerations section reminding people to check the current literature for recent algorithm news. Perhaps that is sufficient. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 18:20:13 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09262 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:20:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QM6iA6047983; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QM6iEr047982; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QM6hLO047957 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:37 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:36 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <20041026215433.GI13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026215433.GI13854@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <4FB2FE62-279B-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Key size suggestions Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:39 -0700 To: David Shaw , OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 26 Oct 2004, at 2:54 PM, David Shaw wrote: > > This is more of a question to the WG. I'll make a formal change > suggestion if the folks here think it is warranted. > > 2440 came out in 1998, and included some general recommendations as to > minimum key size: 768 bits for all of DSA, RSA, and Elgamal. Today, 6 > years later, I doubt these values would be used, even as minimums. > > My intent is not to get into a discussion as to algorithm strength, > and the best key length to use, etc, but to ask if *any* static > recommendations as to key length are useful. I expect the new RFC > will be around for a good long time, and over that lifespan, the state > of the art in attacks will undoubtedly improve. > > The draft already contains a note in the security considerations > section reminding people to check the current literature for recent > algorithm news. Perhaps that is sufficient. > I beat you to it. I upped them to 1024 bits and put in a statement for Elgamal, as well. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Oct 26 18:29:47 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA11756 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:29:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QM5MhO047675; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QM5MoV047674; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QM5M27047648 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:22 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:21 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <20041026213129.GH13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026213129.GH13854@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1ACD29C7-279B-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Elgamal Signature remnants Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:10 -0700 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 26 Oct 2004, at 2:31 PM, David Shaw wrote: > > Section 14 references Elgamal sign+encrypt keys, and section 17 has a > citation for the Bleichenbacher paper about Elgamal signatures. > > Since we have dropped Elgamal signatures from the standard, these can > probably both go. > Thanks for the pointer. I was going through looking at deprecation and found one or two of those. I'll look again. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 27 07:53:43 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27587 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RBUvUB035077; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:30:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RBUvjt035076; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:30:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RBUtHX035066 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:30:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@iang.org) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9RBUZ216442; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:40 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:37 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Four Points. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Four points, indicated by roman numerals. The first suggests a change of substance. iang ==================================================================== 5.13. Sym. Encrypted Integrity Protected Data Packet (Tag 18) ... i. Can we migrate Tag 18 to a MUST support, or at least a MUST read? Something like: A conforming implementation MUST support decryption of this packet. ( At the moment, it is a "SHOULD prefer" which I take to mean an implementation should strive to send out/encrypt these packets when it has a choice. That's fine, as long as there is some statement on reading/decrypting.) When was this feature introduced? I suspect enough time has passed, and enough implementations are doing it that we can move this to a MUST. It is certainly the standard that these days, protocols should be MAC'd or MDC's in some fashion. ii. It seems that section 5.13 duplicates much of the special CFB processing rules, except for a caveat at the end. Maybe duplication is needed here for care reasons, or maybe this could more readily refer to "12.7. OpenPGP CFB mode" Just a thought. ... During decryption, the plaintext data should be hashed with SHA-1, including the prefix data as well as the packet tag and length field of the Modification Detection Code packet. The body of the MDC packet, upon decryption, is compared with the result of the SHA-1 hash. Any difference in hash values is an indication that the message has been modified and SHOULD be reported to the user. Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext, also represent message modifications and SHOULD also be reported. iii. The latter 2 sentences above seem less severe than the similar sentence in the below section 13, section starting "In late summer 2002..." (below, at end). * In late summer 2002... ... An implementation MUST treat an MDC failure as a security problem, not merely a data problem. I'd suggest adding reference to the MUST treat as a security problem, above. Perhaps: ... Any difference in hash values is an indication that the message has been modified and MUST be treated as a security problem. Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext, also represent message modifications and MUST be treated as a security problem. These events SHOULD be reported to the user. Although I think it could be tidied up more: Any failure of the MDC indicates that the message has been modified and MUST be treated as a security problem. Failures include a difference in the hash values, but also the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext. Any failure SHOULD be reported to the user. 13. Security Considerations * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. Possession of the private key portion of a public-private key pair is assumed to be controlled by the proper party or parties. iv. This seems unworthy of stating, but either way, might be better written: * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. It is assumed that the private key portion of a public-private key pair is controlled and secured by the proper party or parties. ==================================================================== From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 27 08:49:35 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA00493 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:49:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RCX8xl049929; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:33:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RCX810049928; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:33:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RCX7pT049846 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:33:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMmyF-0006sY-00 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:32:07 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMmu7-0007DH-EM; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:27:51 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Four Points. References: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:27:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> (Ian Grigg's message of "Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:37 +0100") Message-ID: <87breoibw8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:37 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > When was this feature introduced? I suspect enough time has > passed, and enough implementations are doing it that we can > move this to a MUST. It is certainly the standard that these > days, protocols should be MAC'd or MDC's in some fashion. About summer 2000 after a predecessor version in spring 1999. > problem. Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC > packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext, > also represent message modifications and MUST be treated as > a security problem. These events SHOULD be reported to the It is a possible security problem. There is far too many encrypted data without the MDC packet in use. A strong warning is okay, but a severe error won't be good. If we would flag that as an error, the implementation should not even output the decrypted messages which clearly is not acceptable to most users trying to restore their backup or reading an archived mail. An implementation may still decide what to do but the standard should not enforce it. Werner From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 27 09:16:32 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02396 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RD0JaZ056160; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:00:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RD0JV6056159; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:00:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RD0HbJ056153 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:00:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@iang.org) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9RCxm216956; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:59:58 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417F9BC5.6050007@iang.org> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:59:49 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Werner Koch CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Four Points. References: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> <87breoibw8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> In-Reply-To: <87breoibw8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:37 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > > >>When was this feature introduced? I suspect enough time has >>passed, and enough implementations are doing it that we can >>move this to a MUST. It is certainly the standard that these >>days, protocols should be MAC'd or MDC's in some fashion. > > > About summer 2000 after a predecessor version in spring 1999. > > >> problem. Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC >> packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext, >> also represent message modifications and MUST be treated as >> a security problem. These events SHOULD be reported to the > > > It is a possible security problem. There is far too many encrypted > data without the MDC packet in use. A strong warning is okay, but a > severe error won't be good. > > If we would flag that as an error, the implementation should not even > output the decrypted messages which clearly is not acceptable to most > users trying to restore their backup or reading an archived mail. An > implementation may still decide what to do but the standard should not > enforce it. Backups .. a good point. Hold on though. If I have created a backup in pre-MDC times, I will have used the previous packet layout, Tag 9. So I can read it as is, as a Tag 9. Nothing I am suggesting should be taken to say that Tag 9 should be phased out or made deprecated. Rather, what I am suggesting is that implementations MUST be able to read Tag 18s and when they come across them, they MUST follow the security rules. (Even if were to make sending/encrypting a MUST, I don't think we are at the point of saying that an implementation MUST NOT send out Tag 9s.) OTOH, are you suggesting that some implementations created Tag 18s without correct MDCs? That seems to be an error, and those should be treated as failures, as described, no? Does that make it clearer? iang PS: 5.7. Symmetrically Encrypted Data Packet (Tag 9) From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 27 09:52:10 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA04310 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:52:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RDbxYc063299; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:37:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RDbxr4063298; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:37:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RDbwVV063285 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:37:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMnz8-0000aS-00 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:37:06 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMnwe-0007HF-RL; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:34:32 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Four Points. References: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> <87breoibw8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417F9BC5.6050007@iang.org> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:34:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <417F9BC5.6050007@iang.org> (Ian Grigg's message of "Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:59:49 +0100") Message-ID: <87wtxcgu8n.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:59:49 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > Nothing I am suggesting should be taken to say > that Tag 9 should be phased out or made deprecated. I see. Forget about my comments, they are not valid then. > OTOH, are you suggesting that some implementations > created Tag 18s without correct MDCs? That seems to Not that I know of. Werner From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Oct 27 18:38:47 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA24131 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RMKN29081369; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RMKNMj081368; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RMKMpR081333 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:11 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.108] ([63.251.255.25]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:10 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> References: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <3F1DE506-2866-11D9-A17F-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Four Points. Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:19:19 -0700 To: Ian Grigg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good points. I'll incorporate them when I have a moment. I did some work on the draft yesterday and would have sent out a new one but the pre-meeting close on new drafts was Monday. My only comment myself is that I think there's a lot of implementation notes in the draft as it is, and if anything too many. There is also a lot of paternal tongue-clucking about what people should do when there's an error. I'll tidy up, but I think there is if anything too much as it is. Jon On 27 Oct 2004, at 4:30 AM, Ian Grigg wrote: > > Four points, indicated by roman numerals. > > The first suggests a change of substance. > > iang > > ==================================================================== > 5.13. Sym. Encrypted Integrity Protected Data Packet (Tag 18) > ... > > i. Can we migrate Tag 18 to a MUST support, or at least a MUST read? > Something like: > > A conforming implementation MUST support decryption of this > packet. > > ( At the moment, it is a "SHOULD prefer" which I take to mean an > implementation should strive to send out/encrypt these packets when > it has a choice. That's fine, as long as there is some statement > on reading/decrypting.) > > When was this feature introduced? I suspect enough time has > passed, and enough implementations are doing it that we can > move this to a MUST. It is certainly the standard that these > days, protocols should be MAC'd or MDC's in some fashion. > > > > ii. It seems that section 5.13 duplicates much of the special > CFB processing rules, except for a caveat at the end. Maybe > duplication is needed here for care reasons, or maybe this could > more readily refer to "12.7. OpenPGP CFB mode" Just a thought. > > > > ... > During decryption, the plaintext data should be hashed with SHA-1, > including the prefix data as well as the packet tag and length field > of the Modification Detection Code packet. The body of the MDC > packet, upon decryption, is compared with the result of the SHA-1 > hash. Any difference in hash values is an indication that the > message has been modified and SHOULD be reported to the user. > Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any > position other than the end of the plaintext, also represent message > modifications and SHOULD also be reported. > > iii. The latter 2 sentences above seem less severe than the > similar sentence in the below section 13, section starting > "In late summer 2002..." (below, at end). > > * In late summer 2002... > ... > An implementation > MUST treat an MDC failure as a security problem, not merely a > data problem. > > I'd suggest adding > reference to the MUST treat as a security problem, above. > Perhaps: > > ... Any difference in hash values is an indication that the > message has been modified and MUST be treated as a security > problem. Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC > packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext, > also represent message modifications and MUST be treated as > a security problem. These events SHOULD be reported to the > user. > > Although I think it could be tidied up more: > > Any failure of the MDC indicates that the message has been > modified and MUST be treated as a security problem. > Failures include a difference in the hash values, but also > the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any > position other than the end of the plaintext. Any failure > SHOULD be reported to the user. > > > > > 13. Security Considerations > > * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. > Possession of the private key portion of a public-private key > pair is assumed to be controlled by the proper party or parties. > > iv. This seems unworthy of stating, but either way, might be better > written: > > * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. > It is assumed that the private key portion of a public-private > key > pair is controlled and secured by the proper party or parties. > > ==================================================================== > From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Fri Oct 29 21:48:28 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03419 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:48:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9U1PrTI035136; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:25:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9U1PrAB035135; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:25:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9U1Pr4q035091 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:25:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:25:49 -0700 Received: from [172.10.10.127] ([68.166.214.114]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:25:48 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> References: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7F0E00FE-29FF-11D9-96FF-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Four Points. Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:08:50 -0700 To: Ian Grigg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > i. Can we migrate Tag 18 to a MUST support, or at least a MUST read? > Something like: > > A conforming implementation MUST support decryption of this > packet. > I'm putting this in, but I note that makes the minimal implementation larger. Since not one person has squealed, I'm hearing rough consensus in that silence. > > ii. It seems that section 5.13 duplicates much of the special > CFB processing rules, except for a caveat at the end. Maybe > duplication is needed here for care reasons, or maybe this could > more readily refer to "12.7. OpenPGP CFB mode" Just a thought. > I put a note in. However, there's a small difference between the MDC and the other version. The MDC version doesn't resync the CFB chain. > Although I think it could be tidied up more: > > Any failure of the MDC indicates that the message has been > modified and MUST be treated as a security problem. > Failures include a difference in the hash values, but also > the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any > position other than the end of the plaintext. Any failure > SHOULD be reported to the user. > I took this language and broke it out into its own paragraph. > > > > 13. Security Considerations > > * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. > Possession of the private key portion of a public-private key > pair is assumed to be controlled by the proper party or parties. > > iv. This seems unworthy of stating, but either way, might be better > written: > > * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. > It is assumed that the private key portion of a public-private > key > pair is controlled and secured by the proper party or parties. > I think this particular warning dates all the way back to 1991, but I'm not sure. I'd go for taking it out, myself, because I agree it to be a "Well, Duh!" comment. However, I also remember it being Extremely Important to someone back in the Crypto Wars. I'm taking your rewrite. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9U1PrTI035136; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:25:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9U1PrAB035135; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:25:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9U1Pr4q035091 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:25:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:25:49 -0700 Received: from [172.10.10.127] ([68.166.214.114]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:25:48 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> References: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7F0E00FE-29FF-11D9-96FF-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Four Points. Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:08:50 -0700 To: Ian Grigg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: > i. Can we migrate Tag 18 to a MUST support, or at least a MUST read? > Something like: > > A conforming implementation MUST support decryption of this > packet. > I'm putting this in, but I note that makes the minimal implementation larger. Since not one person has squealed, I'm hearing rough consensus in that silence. > > ii. It seems that section 5.13 duplicates much of the special > CFB processing rules, except for a caveat at the end. Maybe > duplication is needed here for care reasons, or maybe this could > more readily refer to "12.7. OpenPGP CFB mode" Just a thought. > I put a note in. However, there's a small difference between the MDC and the other version. The MDC version doesn't resync the CFB chain. > Although I think it could be tidied up more: > > Any failure of the MDC indicates that the message has been > modified and MUST be treated as a security problem. > Failures include a difference in the hash values, but also > the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any > position other than the end of the plaintext. Any failure > SHOULD be reported to the user. > I took this language and broke it out into its own paragraph. > > > > 13. Security Considerations > > * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. > Possession of the private key portion of a public-private key > pair is assumed to be controlled by the proper party or parties. > > iv. This seems unworthy of stating, but either way, might be better > written: > > * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. > It is assumed that the private key portion of a public-private > key > pair is controlled and secured by the proper party or parties. > I think this particular warning dates all the way back to 1991, but I'm not sure. I'd go for taking it out, myself, because I agree it to be a "Well, Duh!" comment. However, I also remember it being Extremely Important to someone back in the Crypto Wars. I'm taking your rewrite. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RMKN29081369; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RMKNMj081368; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RMKMpR081333 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:11 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.108] ([63.251.255.25]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:10 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> References: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <3F1DE506-2866-11D9-A17F-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Four Points. Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:19:19 -0700 To: Ian Grigg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Good points. I'll incorporate them when I have a moment. I did some work on the draft yesterday and would have sent out a new one but the pre-meeting close on new drafts was Monday. My only comment myself is that I think there's a lot of implementation notes in the draft as it is, and if anything too many. There is also a lot of paternal tongue-clucking about what people should do when there's an error. I'll tidy up, but I think there is if anything too much as it is. Jon On 27 Oct 2004, at 4:30 AM, Ian Grigg wrote: > > Four points, indicated by roman numerals. > > The first suggests a change of substance. > > iang > > ==================================================================== > 5.13. Sym. Encrypted Integrity Protected Data Packet (Tag 18) > ... > > i. Can we migrate Tag 18 to a MUST support, or at least a MUST read? > Something like: > > A conforming implementation MUST support decryption of this > packet. > > ( At the moment, it is a "SHOULD prefer" which I take to mean an > implementation should strive to send out/encrypt these packets when > it has a choice. That's fine, as long as there is some statement > on reading/decrypting.) > > When was this feature introduced? I suspect enough time has > passed, and enough implementations are doing it that we can > move this to a MUST. It is certainly the standard that these > days, protocols should be MAC'd or MDC's in some fashion. > > > > ii. It seems that section 5.13 duplicates much of the special > CFB processing rules, except for a caveat at the end. Maybe > duplication is needed here for care reasons, or maybe this could > more readily refer to "12.7. OpenPGP CFB mode" Just a thought. > > > > ... > During decryption, the plaintext data should be hashed with SHA-1, > including the prefix data as well as the packet tag and length field > of the Modification Detection Code packet. The body of the MDC > packet, upon decryption, is compared with the result of the SHA-1 > hash. Any difference in hash values is an indication that the > message has been modified and SHOULD be reported to the user. > Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any > position other than the end of the plaintext, also represent message > modifications and SHOULD also be reported. > > iii. The latter 2 sentences above seem less severe than the > similar sentence in the below section 13, section starting > "In late summer 2002..." (below, at end). > > * In late summer 2002... > ... > An implementation > MUST treat an MDC failure as a security problem, not merely a > data problem. > > I'd suggest adding > reference to the MUST treat as a security problem, above. > Perhaps: > > ... Any difference in hash values is an indication that the > message has been modified and MUST be treated as a security > problem. Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC > packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext, > also represent message modifications and MUST be treated as > a security problem. These events SHOULD be reported to the > user. > > Although I think it could be tidied up more: > > Any failure of the MDC indicates that the message has been > modified and MUST be treated as a security problem. > Failures include a difference in the hash values, but also > the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any > position other than the end of the plaintext. Any failure > SHOULD be reported to the user. > > > > > 13. Security Considerations > > * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. > Possession of the private key portion of a public-private key > pair is assumed to be controlled by the proper party or parties. > > iv. This seems unworthy of stating, but either way, might be better > written: > > * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. > It is assumed that the private key portion of a public-private > key > pair is controlled and secured by the proper party or parties. > > ==================================================================== > Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RDbxYc063299; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:37:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RDbxr4063298; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:37:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RDbwVV063285 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:37:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMnz8-0000aS-00 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:37:06 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMnwe-0007HF-RL; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:34:32 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Four Points. References: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> <87breoibw8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417F9BC5.6050007@iang.org> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:34:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <417F9BC5.6050007@iang.org> (Ian Grigg's message of "Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:59:49 +0100") Message-ID: <87wtxcgu8n.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:59:49 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > Nothing I am suggesting should be taken to say > that Tag 9 should be phased out or made deprecated. I see. Forget about my comments, they are not valid then. > OTOH, are you suggesting that some implementations > created Tag 18s without correct MDCs? That seems to Not that I know of. Werner Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RD0JaZ056160; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:00:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RD0JV6056159; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:00:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RD0HbJ056153 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:00:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@iang.org) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9RCxm216956; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:59:58 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417F9BC5.6050007@iang.org> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:59:49 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Werner Koch CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Four Points. References: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> <87breoibw8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> In-Reply-To: <87breoibw8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:37 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > > >>When was this feature introduced? I suspect enough time has >>passed, and enough implementations are doing it that we can >>move this to a MUST. It is certainly the standard that these >>days, protocols should be MAC'd or MDC's in some fashion. > > > About summer 2000 after a predecessor version in spring 1999. > > >> problem. Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC >> packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext, >> also represent message modifications and MUST be treated as >> a security problem. These events SHOULD be reported to the > > > It is a possible security problem. There is far too many encrypted > data without the MDC packet in use. A strong warning is okay, but a > severe error won't be good. > > If we would flag that as an error, the implementation should not even > output the decrypted messages which clearly is not acceptable to most > users trying to restore their backup or reading an archived mail. An > implementation may still decide what to do but the standard should not > enforce it. Backups .. a good point. Hold on though. If I have created a backup in pre-MDC times, I will have used the previous packet layout, Tag 9. So I can read it as is, as a Tag 9. Nothing I am suggesting should be taken to say that Tag 9 should be phased out or made deprecated. Rather, what I am suggesting is that implementations MUST be able to read Tag 18s and when they come across them, they MUST follow the security rules. (Even if were to make sending/encrypting a MUST, I don't think we are at the point of saying that an implementation MUST NOT send out Tag 9s.) OTOH, are you suggesting that some implementations created Tag 18s without correct MDCs? That seems to be an error, and those should be treated as failures, as described, no? Does that make it clearer? iang PS: 5.7. Symmetrically Encrypted Data Packet (Tag 9) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RCX8xl049929; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:33:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RCX810049928; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:33:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RCX7pT049846 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:33:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMmyF-0006sY-00 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:32:07 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CMmu7-0007DH-EM; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:27:51 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Four Points. References: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:27:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> (Ian Grigg's message of "Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:37 +0100") Message-ID: <87breoibw8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:37 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > When was this feature introduced? I suspect enough time has > passed, and enough implementations are doing it that we can > move this to a MUST. It is certainly the standard that these > days, protocols should be MAC'd or MDC's in some fashion. About summer 2000 after a predecessor version in spring 1999. > problem. Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC > packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext, > also represent message modifications and MUST be treated as > a security problem. These events SHOULD be reported to the It is a possible security problem. There is far too many encrypted data without the MDC packet in use. A strong warning is okay, but a severe error won't be good. If we would flag that as an error, the implementation should not even output the decrypted messages which clearly is not acceptable to most users trying to restore their backup or reading an archived mail. An implementation may still decide what to do but the standard should not enforce it. Werner Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RBUvUB035077; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:30:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9RBUvjt035076; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:30:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9RBUtHX035066 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:30:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@iang.org) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9RBUZ216442; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:40 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417F86DD.1040302@iang.org> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:30:37 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Four Points. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Four points, indicated by roman numerals. The first suggests a change of substance. iang ==================================================================== 5.13. Sym. Encrypted Integrity Protected Data Packet (Tag 18) ... i. Can we migrate Tag 18 to a MUST support, or at least a MUST read? Something like: A conforming implementation MUST support decryption of this packet. ( At the moment, it is a "SHOULD prefer" which I take to mean an implementation should strive to send out/encrypt these packets when it has a choice. That's fine, as long as there is some statement on reading/decrypting.) When was this feature introduced? I suspect enough time has passed, and enough implementations are doing it that we can move this to a MUST. It is certainly the standard that these days, protocols should be MAC'd or MDC's in some fashion. ii. It seems that section 5.13 duplicates much of the special CFB processing rules, except for a caveat at the end. Maybe duplication is needed here for care reasons, or maybe this could more readily refer to "12.7. OpenPGP CFB mode" Just a thought. ... During decryption, the plaintext data should be hashed with SHA-1, including the prefix data as well as the packet tag and length field of the Modification Detection Code packet. The body of the MDC packet, upon decryption, is compared with the result of the SHA-1 hash. Any difference in hash values is an indication that the message has been modified and SHOULD be reported to the user. Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext, also represent message modifications and SHOULD also be reported. iii. The latter 2 sentences above seem less severe than the similar sentence in the below section 13, section starting "In late summer 2002..." (below, at end). * In late summer 2002... ... An implementation MUST treat an MDC failure as a security problem, not merely a data problem. I'd suggest adding reference to the MUST treat as a security problem, above. Perhaps: ... Any difference in hash values is an indication that the message has been modified and MUST be treated as a security problem. Likewise, the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext, also represent message modifications and MUST be treated as a security problem. These events SHOULD be reported to the user. Although I think it could be tidied up more: Any failure of the MDC indicates that the message has been modified and MUST be treated as a security problem. Failures include a difference in the hash values, but also the absence of an MDC packet, or an MDC packet in any position other than the end of the plaintext. Any failure SHOULD be reported to the user. 13. Security Considerations * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. Possession of the private key portion of a public-private key pair is assumed to be controlled by the proper party or parties. iv. This seems unworthy of stating, but either way, might be better written: * This specification uses Public Key Cryptography technologies. It is assumed that the private key portion of a public-private key pair is controlled and secured by the proper party or parties. ==================================================================== Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QM6iA6047983; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QM6iEr047982; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QM6hLO047957 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:37 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:36 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <20041026215433.GI13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026215433.GI13854@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <4FB2FE62-279B-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Key size suggestions Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:06:39 -0700 To: David Shaw , OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 26 Oct 2004, at 2:54 PM, David Shaw wrote: > > This is more of a question to the WG. I'll make a formal change > suggestion if the folks here think it is warranted. > > 2440 came out in 1998, and included some general recommendations as to > minimum key size: 768 bits for all of DSA, RSA, and Elgamal. Today, 6 > years later, I doubt these values would be used, even as minimums. > > My intent is not to get into a discussion as to algorithm strength, > and the best key length to use, etc, but to ask if *any* static > recommendations as to key length are useful. I expect the new RFC > will be around for a good long time, and over that lifespan, the state > of the art in attacks will undoubtedly improve. > > The draft already contains a note in the security considerations > section reminding people to check the current literature for recent > algorithm news. Perhaps that is sufficient. > I beat you to it. I upped them to 1024 bits and put in a statement for Elgamal, as well. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QM5MhO047675; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QM5MoV047674; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QM5M27047648 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:22 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:21 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <20041026213129.GH13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026213129.GH13854@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1ACD29C7-279B-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Elgamal Signature remnants Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:05:10 -0700 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 26 Oct 2004, at 2:31 PM, David Shaw wrote: > > Section 14 references Elgamal sign+encrypt keys, and section 17 has a > citation for the Bleichenbacher paper about Elgamal signatures. > > Since we have dropped Elgamal signatures from the standard, these can > probably both go. > Thanks for the pointer. I was going through looking at deprecation and found one or two of those. I'll look again. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLsqGK045322; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:54:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLsq93045321; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:54:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLsqlO045298 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:54:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004102621545201300rdg8ie>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:54:52 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QLsTLO003637 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:54:29 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QLsXS15540 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:54:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:54:33 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Key size suggestions Message-ID: <20041026215433.GI13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: This is more of a question to the WG. I'll make a formal change suggestion if the folks here think it is warranted. 2440 came out in 1998, and included some general recommendations as to minimum key size: 768 bits for all of DSA, RSA, and Elgamal. Today, 6 years later, I doubt these values would be used, even as minimums. My intent is not to get into a discussion as to algorithm strength, and the best key length to use, etc, but to ask if *any* static recommendations as to key length are useful. I expect the new RFC will be around for a good long time, and over that lifespan, the state of the art in attacks will undoubtedly improve. The draft already contains a note in the security considerations section reminding people to check the current literature for recent algorithm news. Perhaps that is sufficient. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLdUeV042629; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLdUFl042628; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLdTOD042603 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:29 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:29 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <20041026211950.GF13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> <877jpdmbtw.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <20041026211950.GF13854@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <8454BA60-2797-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] UTF-8 CRLF Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:39:29 -0700 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 26 Oct 2004, at 2:19 PM, David Shaw wrote: > > My mistake. I had missed that change. I withdraw the suggestion. > And I backed out the change. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLZlI5041760; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLZlUJ041759; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLZkmL041700 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:45 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:45 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <20041026211028.GD13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026211028.GD13854@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] End-of-line whitespace in 0x01 sigs Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:35:43 -0700 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I made this change, and I'll also make a comment that's my opinion: If you have an implementation that's trimming, you don't have to change. If you think that trimming is a good idea, go right ahead. There is nothing in OpenPGP that says that an implementation can't make reasonable transformations on text. This includes trimming, but also things like reformatting paragraphs with line ends into paragraphs without. Your user base might howl, but that's between you and them. I hope this finally puts this to rest. I apologize to the working group for the whole mess. Jon On 26 Oct 2004, at 2:10 PM, David Shaw wrote: > > In section 5.2.1, the text currently reads: > > 0x01: Signature of a canonical text document. > This means the signer owns it, created it, or certifies that it > has not been modified. The signature is calculated over the > text data with its line endings converted to and > trailing spaces (0x020) and tabs (0x09) removed. > > I suggest: > > 0x01: Signature of a canonical text document. > This means the signer owns it, created it, or certifies that it > has not been modified. The signature is calculated over the > text data with its line endings converted to . > > This is the same as before but trailing whitespace is not removed. > Note that I'm only talking about 0x01 signatures here. Cleartext > signatures, and the trimming therein, are unchanged by this. > > Rationale: As much as possible, I feel that the data that you get out > during decryption should be the same as the data that you put in to be > encrypted, and the current behavior violates this. > > There are good reasons to do whitespace trimming for cleartext > signatures (mail mangling, cut and paste mangling, etc). These > reasons do not apply to an 0x01 signature as it is *not* cleartext - > rather, it is protected inside the binary or ascii armor shell. In > general, if we have no good reason to tamper with user supplied input, > I think we should keep hands off. > > Speaking about PGP and GnuPG, there is no real impact to this change. > The only messages that are affected are detached 0x01 signatures, and > since those don't interoperate now (never did), we can hardly make it > worse... > > David > Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLVq0l040560; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLVq4O040559; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLVqS5040523 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004102621314701500mtt26e>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:31:47 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QLVOLO003185 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:31:24 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QLVTF15344 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:31:29 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:31:29 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] Elgamal Signature remnants Message-ID: <20041026213129.GH13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Section 14 references Elgamal sign+encrypt keys, and section 17 has a citation for the Bleichenbacher paper about Elgamal signatures. Since we have dropped Elgamal signatures from the standard, these can probably both go. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLVgtg040525; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLVgtj040524; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLVget040506 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:42 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:41 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <20041026205254.GC13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026205254.GC13854@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <6D855F61-2796-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] Some capitalization oddities Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:31:42 -0700 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 26 Oct 2004, at 1:52 PM, David Shaw wrote: > > In section 5.2.3.23, "User ID" is rendered as "user Id". > > In sections 11.2, and 14, "key ID" is rendered as "key id". > > Not an earth shattering problem, but consistency is nice (everywhere > else both of these items are consistent). > Done. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLUMn2040252; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:30:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLUMeo040248; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:30:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLULNA040230 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:30:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:30:21 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:30:21 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> References: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <28B72EE2-2796-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] UTF-8 CRLF Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:29:46 -0700 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: > > Suggest to add: > > For the 'u' UTF8 literal packet, the minimal UTF8 encoding for the > line endings SHOULD be used. That is, 0x0D 0x0A and not > 0xC0 0x8D 0xC0 0x8A or other multibyte encodings. > Done. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLQwT2039655; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLQwEl039654; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLQwJH039637 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:26:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004102621265701200g45une>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:26:57 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QLQZLO003063 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:26:35 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QLQdO15291 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:26:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:26:39 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] Call V4 V4 Message-ID: <20041026212639.GG13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Section 11.1 contains the sentence: In a key that has a main key and subkeys, the primary key MUST be a key capable of certification. Suggest to change this to: In a V4 key, the primary key MUST be a key capable of certification. Rationale: Frankly, because a while back, I read this as saying that if you have a V4 key without subkeys, then the key isn't necessarily required to be able to certify (and could thus be encrypt-only). Pretty much everyone else read the same thing as saying that the primary key must be capable of certification no matter what. Saying "V4" here instead of "key that has a main key and subkeys" cannot be misunderstood. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLKEVF038400; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLKEfU038399; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:20:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLKDdc038372 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:20:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004102621201301300rcca8e>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:20:13 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QLJkLO002936 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:19:46 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QLJoP15232 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:19:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:19:50 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: [ISSUE] UTF-8 CRLF Message-ID: <20041026211950.GF13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> <877jpdmbtw.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877jpdmbtw.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 11:03:23PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * David Shaw: > > > The last sentence of section 5.9 reads: > > > > Text data is stored with text endings (i.e. network-normal > > line endings). These should be converted to native line endings by > > the receiving software. > > > > Suggest to add: > > > > For the 'u' UTF8 literal packet, the minimal UTF8 encoding for the > > line endings SHOULD be used. That is, 0x0D 0x0A and not > > 0xC0 0x8D 0xC0 0x8A or other multibyte encodings. > > This isn't valid UTF-8. A UTF-8 implementation MUST NOT decode these > octets, but MUST flag an error. The most recent UTF-8 RFC is quite > explicit in this regard. My mistake. I had missed that change. I withdraw the suggestion. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLApLr036756; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:10:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QLApCP036755; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:10:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QLAolH036724 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2004102621104501200fs3cge>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:10:45 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QLANLO002774 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:10:24 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QLASH15155 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:10:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:10:28 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] End-of-line whitespace in 0x01 sigs Message-ID: <20041026211028.GD13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In section 5.2.1, the text currently reads: 0x01: Signature of a canonical text document. This means the signer owns it, created it, or certifies that it has not been modified. The signature is calculated over the text data with its line endings converted to and trailing spaces (0x020) and tabs (0x09) removed. I suggest: 0x01: Signature of a canonical text document. This means the signer owns it, created it, or certifies that it has not been modified. The signature is calculated over the text data with its line endings converted to . This is the same as before but trailing whitespace is not removed. Note that I'm only talking about 0x01 signatures here. Cleartext signatures, and the trimming therein, are unchanged by this. Rationale: As much as possible, I feel that the data that you get out during decryption should be the same as the data that you put in to be encrypted, and the current behavior violates this. There are good reasons to do whitespace trimming for cleartext signatures (mail mangling, cut and paste mangling, etc). These reasons do not apply to an 0x01 signature as it is *not* cleartext - rather, it is protected inside the binary or ascii armor shell. In general, if we have no good reason to tamper with user supplied input, I think we should keep hands off. Speaking about PGP and GnuPG, there is no real impact to this change. The only messages that are affected are detached 0x01 signatures, and since those don't interoperate now (never did), we can hardly make it worse... David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QL3T3W035590; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:03:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QL3Ti1035589; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:03:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from albireo.enyo.de (albireo.enyo.de [212.9.189.169]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QL3SGM035555 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:03:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fw@deneb.enyo.de) Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by albireo.enyo.de with esmtp id 1CMYTV-00007Z-CE for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:03:25 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CMYTT-0006Tn-33 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:03:23 +0200 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: [ISSUE] UTF-8 CRLF References: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> From: Florian Weimer Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:03:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> (David Shaw's message of "Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:47:58 -0400") Message-ID: <877jpdmbtw.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: * David Shaw: > The last sentence of section 5.9 reads: > > Text data is stored with text endings (i.e. network-normal > line endings). These should be converted to native line endings by > the receiving software. > > Suggest to add: > > For the 'u' UTF8 literal packet, the minimal UTF8 encoding for the > line endings SHOULD be used. That is, 0x0D 0x0A and not > 0xC0 0x8D 0xC0 0x8A or other multibyte encodings. This isn't valid UTF-8. A UTF-8 implementation MUST NOT decode these octets, but MUST flag an error. The most recent UTF-8 RFC is quite explicit in this regard. The UTF-8 issue I mentioned previously arises because Unicode has additional characters with line-ending semantics. There used to be a Unicode Technical Report on this topic, but it has been superseded by section 5.8 in Unicode 4.0: Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKrDMQ033922; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:53:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QKrDwo033921; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:53:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKrD22033904 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:53:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20041026205312016000jp9de>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:53:12 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QKqnLO002455 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:52:50 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QKqsY15009 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:52:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:52:54 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] Some capitalization oddities Message-ID: <20041026205254.GC13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In section 5.2.3.23, "User ID" is rendered as "user Id". In sections 11.2, and 14, "key ID" is rendered as "key id". Not an earth shattering problem, but consistency is nice (everywhere else both of these items are consistent). David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKmOFN033269; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QKmOGI033268; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.198.39]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKmOxR033239 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:48:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004102620481601500mtl7ue>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:48:16 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9QKlrLO002364 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:47:54 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9QKlw914969 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:47:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:47:58 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] UTF-8 CRLF Message-ID: <20041026204758.GB13854@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (98% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: The last sentence of section 5.9 reads: Text data is stored with text endings (i.e. network-normal line endings). These should be converted to native line endings by the receiving software. Suggest to add: For the 'u' UTF8 literal packet, the minimal UTF8 encoding for the line endings SHOULD be used. That is, 0x0D 0x0A and not 0xC0 0x8D 0xC0 0x8A or other multibyte encodings. Rationale: This would be a kindness for those implementations that will not be doing UTF8->local conversions. Lacking a UTF8 decoder, those implementations cannot tell that "0xC0 0x8D" or other encodings is identical to 0x0D. If senders are careful in this regard, then the non-UTF8 implementations can at least get the line endings right. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKQLE0030490; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QKQLvO030489; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKQLGG030468 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:20 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:19 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <417A705F.2010407@systemics.com> References: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> <417A705F.2010407@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <4876E2D0-278D-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: rfc2440bis-11 - 2 more comments Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:26:14 -0700 To: Ian Grigg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 23 Oct 2004, at 7:53 AM, Ian Grigg wrote: > "... Thus, software that > interoperates with those versions of PGP must only use old format > packets. If interoperability is not an issue, THE NEW PACKET FORMAT > IS PREFERRED." > Done. > > > > #2 Medium Comment > > 13. Security Considerations > ... > * The MD5 hash algorithm has been found to have weaknesses > (pseudo-collisions in the compress function) that make some > people deprecate its use. They consider the SHA-1 algorithm > better. > > I think it's fair to say that since the last draft, we've > moved on beyond that. I'd suggest that MD5 should be deprecated. > and applications SHOULD use SHA1 and for compatibility MAY > accept MD5. Or somesuch. > This is part of what I've glibly characterized as PGP 2 deprecation. No argument here. > Now, that's either easy to say or hard to say, depending on > whether one thinks that SHA1 is wobbly or safe. But, on the > whole, I don't think it should stop us deprecating MD5 at this > point in time. If that means that the document has a sort of > hole in it, then so be it, mark it and let's move on. > > Before going on to deal with this - can we agree or discuss > whether we should deprecate MD5 at this point? If we agree > to do so, then it's just a matter of scanning for MD5 and > doing the switcheroo. > MD5 needs to be fully deprecated. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKEgkm028814; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QKEgN0028813; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QKEgRa028795 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5) for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:39 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:39 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: last call? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:14:38 -0700 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I also want to issue my agreement with Werner on interoperability. Recent releases of GnuPG and PGP offer an existence proof of interoperability. (I'll go further and say that in the PGP cases, the interop problems we used to have were caused by our not upgrading pre-2440 behavior to be 2440-compliant.) The places where there *are* interop problems, they are caused by PGP 2 backwards compatibility. In 2440, backwards compatibility is encouraged but not required; it's a SHOULD. Since one of the remaining items is to demote that SHOULD, we don't need to consider these issues. When you do this, Ian's implementation is a third one. There is interoperability. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QK5ITQ027496; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QK5Ic2027495; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QK5HG1027470 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5) for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:05 -0700 Received: from [10.214.2.201] ([63.251.255.84]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:04 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <417E380C.50405@systemics.com> References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> <87sm82n1ih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417E380C.50405@systemics.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <5354DD84-278A-11D9-A99E-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: last call? Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:05:04 -0700 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I don't think we're ready for -11 to be last call. As I've said before, what's missing from -11 is removing / deprecating / etc. PGP 2 stuff. I haven't done that. That is in my opinion a requirement for last call. Beyond that, I know of no remaining open issues (from the last time Derek and I talked) for which there was something actionable. I mean by 'actionable' that while it might be true that X could be improved, there's no offered actual text. I'm loathe to go fix something that's suboptimal because there's a significant risk that my fix will be no better or even worse than the previous thing. I offer as an example of where I did this in the past is the whitespace and trimming issue in text and clearsigned signatures. I took a good complaint with a reasonably vague description of what should be changed and made a good guess. That good guess wasn't good enough. I don't want to repeat this. Restating again and tying in what Derek has said, he and I are going to be in the same place in a couple-three weeks. I believe there are no actionable open items. I believe that the remaining ones should be discarded, if for no other reason that they don't seem to be burning issues and finishing a new RFC takes precedence. (Modulo PGP 2 deprecation) I'm willing to be corrected or overruled on either of my beliefs by him or the working group. But in the interests of finishing, I'm going to assert these beliefs in a clear voice. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QBg5Vg077292; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:42:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9QBg53M077291; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:42:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9QBfxba077276 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:42:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9QBff210200; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:41:52 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417E380C.50405@systemics.com> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:42:04 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> <87sm82n1ih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Derek Atkins wrote: > Good question. There is a document on the process in general, > and "The Dao of the IETF". As for when a 'bis' document progresses > to Draft or stays at Proposed tends to be a combination of time, > effort, interop, and the amount of changes between the original > and new document. In particular, to go from Proposed to Draft > you generally can NOT add new features... As an observation, I don't think too many features have been added since 1999, so I can't see the problem with that. >>>Moving to "draft standard" will be a secondary process once we finish >>>2440bis. >> >>:-( >> >>Okay, to make the later interop testing easier we should now really >>consider to make all PGP2 things OPTIONAL or even remove them. I personally think this is an excellent idea, but... > Eh, we can always drop that when we move to draft. Dropping > "features" is perfectly reasonable in Proposed -> Draft. The main > purpose of the interop testing is to see what's been implemented but > also to weed out what cannot be implemented (or hasn't been > implemented) and drop it from the draft _then_. > > So, if we're going to Proposed now, as I suspect we are, then there's > no need to drop RFC1991 compatibility now. We can drop in 6ish months > later when we go to Draft. That's encouraging. Cryptix already made the decision several years back to drop pgp2 from our OpenPGP library. It just doesn't make sense to maintain separate paths in the code for such a small user base, our users are much better served with us spending that time on applications. iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PIKvZF093775; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:20:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PIKvgj093774; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:20:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dogbert.ihtfp.org (me@DOGBERT.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.33]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PIKpW7093742 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from warlord@MIT.EDU) Received: (from warlord@localhost) by dogbert.ihtfp.org (8.12.9) id i9PIKqWF027570; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:20:52 -0400 To: Werner Koch Cc: Ian Grigg , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> <87sm82n1ih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> From: Derek Atkins Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:20:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87sm82n1ih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> (Werner Koch's message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:36:22 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Werner Koch writes: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:10:13 -0400, Derek Atkins said: > >> Unfortunately that is not sufficient.... > > Is there an RFC defining the rules? Good question. There is a document on the process in general, and "The Dao of the IETF". As for when a 'bis' document progresses to Draft or stays at Proposed tends to be a combination of time, effort, interop, and the amount of changes between the original and new document. In particular, to go from Proposed to Draft you generally can NOT add new features... > FWIW, from the minutes of the 45th IETF OpenPGP WG on 14-July-1999: > > Advance to Draft, Collect $200 > 6 months have passed > Requirements > 2 implementations > No IPR problems > 6 months of experience > > JN: We have the experience but we do not have the interoperability > fully checked. Suggest: Enumerating all the musts and publishing a > document so implementors can easily see requirements for > compliance. Finally, we can get implementors into a room for > testing. > > Implementors' survey & results are at: > noc.rutgers.edu/~mione/ietf/ietfopgp.html This was a long long time ago and under the previous chair, so my applogies for not being in the loop for this. >> Moving to "draft standard" will be a secondary process once we finish >> 2440bis. > > :-( > > Okay, to make the later interop testing easier we should now really > consider to make all PGP2 things OPTIONAL or even remove them. Eh, we can always drop that when we move to draft. Dropping "features" is perfectly reasonable in Proposed -> Draft. The main purpose of the interop testing is to see what's been implemented but also to weed out what cannot be implemented (or hasn't been implemented) and drop it from the draft _then_. So, if we're going to Proposed now, as I suspect we are, then there's no need to drop RFC1991 compatibility now. We can drop in 6ish months later when we go to Draft. > Werner -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PHguof084062; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:42:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PHgu97084061; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:42:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PHgtgQ084055 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:42:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CM8re-0003Sl-00 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:42:38 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CM8la-0003wW-JH; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:36:22 +0200 To: Derek Atkins Cc: Ian Grigg , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:36:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Derek Atkins's message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:10:13 -0400") Message-ID: <87sm82n1ih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:10:13 -0400, Derek Atkins said: > Unfortunately that is not sufficient.... Is there an RFC defining the rules? FWIW, from the minutes of the 45th IETF OpenPGP WG on 14-July-1999: Advance to Draft, Collect $200 6 months have passed Requirements 2 implementations No IPR problems 6 months of experience JN: We have the experience but we do not have the interoperability fully checked. Suggest: Enumerating all the musts and publishing a document so implementors can easily see requirements for compliance. Finally, we can get implementors into a room for testing. Implementors' survey & results are at: noc.rutgers.edu/~mione/ietf/ietfopgp.html > Moving to "draft standard" will be a secondary process once we finish > 2440bis. :-( Okay, to make the later interop testing easier we should now really consider to make all PGP2 things OPTIONAL or even remove them. Werner Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PEAI5l041799; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:10:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PEAImj041798; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:10:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dogbert.ihtfp.org (me@DOGBERT.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.33]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PEAH4m041789 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:10:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from warlord@MIT.EDU) Received: (from warlord@localhost) by dogbert.ihtfp.org (8.12.9) id i9PEAEMr025356; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:10:14 -0400 To: Ian Grigg Cc: Werner Koch , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> From: Derek Atkins Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:10:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:49:06 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Ian Grigg writes: > Werner Koch wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:30:24 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > >>>2. what is the process? Do we vote, do we pray or do we >>>send bribes? >> We need to get a rough consensus within this WG. > > OK. I'd say it is good to go. With or without the handful > of minor changes suggested in the last few days. I'm glad you think it's good to go. Being the chair, it's my job to call a last call. It's not going to happen before the DC meeting. It might happen shortly after DC. I need to talk with Jon about it (I'll be seeing him in about two weeks). > Any other entries into consensual roughness? Yes, we need to hear from lots of other people in this group, too, and Jon and I need to go over the list of open issues and make sure they are all handled. Rough concensus is not one vocal person saying "we're done", it's the group as a whole saying "we're done". It's my job to listen to the group as a whole.. And part of that job is tuning _OUT_ those single vocal voices to make sure they aren't the only ones saying something. >> 5. How to we get into Draft Standard status? We have talked for >> years about interoperability tests but we never >> actually did anything. AFAIK, there is no formal process for such >> a tests and I ask myself whether it is sufficient that the 2 oldest >> implementations (PGP and GnuPG) have shown over the years that they >> are quite good interoperable and that the last OpenPGP glitches >> have been sorted out with the last releases of both programs. We >> could probably come up with a collection of discussions as evidence >> to what we have tested during the development. Unfortunately that is not sufficient.... > OK, I am guessing here that interoperability tests > are required to get to draft standard. Yes. However I believe 2440bis is still going to Proposed Standard. There are enough changes to warrant PS instead of DS. > a. does that have a bearing on the RFC process for > bis-11? Or is it independent? Moving to "draft standard" will be a secondary process once we finish 2440bis. > b. can someone summarise what has been said in the > past about interoperability? Irrelevant.. We need to work from the draft and perform an actual bakeoff with multiple implementations and go, feature by feature down the list in the draft and test each and every MUST/SHOULD in the draft. (I don't recall if you need to test MAY, but I think you do). Then you remove anything that hasn't been implemented, or you wait for it to get imeplemented, and publish yet another draft (with yet another RFC number) as a DS. > c. without any thought or research, I'd suggest > something like the following: > > i. a program for each implementation that produced > an example of each type of message. > > ii. a program for each that reads the examples in i. > > iii. ideally, a service where an implementation can > be put into random spit mode, where it churns out > a squillion of these random messages of all forms, > > iv. again, a service where an implementation can > process a squillion random messages. > > Then, take the two implementations and run them against > each other. (This is how I test my stuff.) It has one > particular hole in it, as it doesn't cover how an > implementation deals with an illegal message. But that's > a security issue not an implementation issue. > > d. or, anything else? c is certainly a workable test plan.. But let's get 2440bis finished before we start working on the bakeoff.. You're welcome to think about how to implement the bakeoff now but I'd suggest we keep that to a low simmer until we get the document through WGLC and into the hands of the IESG. > iang -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PDfPQ8039961; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:41:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PDfPec039960; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:41:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PDfOnl039953 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:41:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <20041025134121013009l359e>; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:41:21 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9PDexLO006046 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:40:59 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9PDf3r22136 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:41:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:41:03 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? Message-ID: <20041025134102.GA22085@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (93% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: >On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 01:49:06PM +0100, Ian Grigg wrote: > >We need to get a rough consensus within this WG. > > OK. I'd say it is good to go. With or without the handful > of minor changes suggested in the last few days. > > Any other entries into consensual roughness? I am not part of such a consensus. There were several minor open issues when the list went silent. I am traveling right now, but will repost them tomorrow. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PCmCpk034393; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:48:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PCmCZ8034392; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:48:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PCmAIi034385 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:48:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9PClt203873; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:48:00 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417CF642.2090801@systemics.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:49:06 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Werner Koch CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> In-Reply-To: <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Werner Koch wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:30:24 +0100, Ian Grigg said: >>2. what is the process? Do we vote, do we pray or do we >>send bribes? > > > We need to get a rough consensus within this WG. OK. I'd say it is good to go. With or without the handful of minor changes suggested in the last few days. Any other entries into consensual roughness? > 5. How to we get into Draft Standard status? > > We have talked for years about interoperability tests but we never > actually did anything. AFAIK, there is no formal process for such > a tests and I ask myself whether it is sufficient that the 2 oldest > implementations (PGP and GnuPG) have shown over the years that they > are quite good interoperable and that the last OpenPGP glitches > have been sorted out with the last releases of both programs. We > could probably come up with a collection of discussions as evidence > to what we have tested during the development. OK, I am guessing here that interoperability tests are required to get to draft standard. a. does that have a bearing on the RFC process for bis-11? Or is it independent? b. can someone summarise what has been said in the past about interoperability? c. without any thought or research, I'd suggest something like the following: i. a program for each implementation that produced an example of each type of message. ii. a program for each that reads the examples in i. iii. ideally, a service where an implementation can be put into random spit mode, where it churns out a squillion of these random messages of all forms, iv. again, a service where an implementation can process a squillion random messages. Then, take the two implementations and run them against each other. (This is how I test my stuff.) It has one particular hole in it, as it doesn't cover how an implementation deals with an illegal message. But that's a security issue not an implementation issue. d. or, anything else? iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PBD5P8023039; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:13:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PBD5UG023038; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:13:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PBD4jx022960 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:13:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CM2mJ-0006jS-00 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:12:43 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CM2gO-0003Xc-0b; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:06:36 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: last call? References: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:06:36 +0200 In-Reply-To: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:30:24 +0100") Message-ID: <87d5z7t5tv.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:30:24 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > 2. what is the process? Do we vote, do we pray or do we > send bribes? We need to get a rough consensus within this WG. > 4. What's the story about the RFC number change? Is it > possible to get an allocation at this point? That is the task of the RFC-Editor. 5. How to we get into Draft Standard status? We have talked for years about interoperability tests but we never actually did anything. AFAIK, there is no formal process for such a tests and I ask myself whether it is sufficient that the 2 oldest implementations (PGP and GnuPG) have shown over the years that they are quite good interoperable and that the last OpenPGP glitches have been sorted out with the last releases of both programs. We could probably come up with a collection of discussions as evidence to what we have tested during the development. Salam-Shalom, Werner Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PATUqd005580; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:29:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9PATUXH005579; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:29:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9PATTJQ005562 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:29:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9PATD203308; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:29:19 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417CD5C0.6050009@systemics.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:30:24 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: last call? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: It has been mooted that we might be moving to a last call for changes on the draft bis-11 (perhaps only by me :-) Questions of procedure: 1. is this the case? Are we entering into a last call? And if not, how do we proceed to get there? 2. what is the process? Do we vote, do we pray or do we send bribes? 3. What is the procedure for doc changes within the process? None at all? Only severe security changes? Or something in between? (I note that there seem to be at least 2 changes that have to be made, being the year, I pointed out a few days ago, and the RFC # which apparently has to change.) 4. What's the story about the RFC number change? Is it possible to get an allocation at this point? iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9P9OJGl077210; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:24:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9P9OJWV077209; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:24:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from rimon.safe-mail.net (rimon.safe-mail.net [212.199.206.179]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9P9OEKi077043 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 02:24:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from poiboy@SAFe-mail.net) Received: from poiboy@SAFe-mail.net by rimon.safe-mail.net with SAFe-mail (Exim 4.30) id 1CM151-0001DS-04 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:23:55 -0400 Received: from pc ([66.91.47.10]) by SAFe-mail.net with https Subject: private key binding clarification Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:23:54 +0100 From: poiboy@SAFe-mail.net To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org X-SMType: Regular X-SMRef: N1-2_Toh_y4 Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SMSignature: z9krJOAOJTnuv7To2cQ54+D/eX3r62O4F0VdZlM2c+Oq5IYuAkNEqahPDjUv9KPE8UPXZcatj++mPPAV JF+P/DuJZdPX0W6A3GN5RcafnvQrxLs2kv88IrgwZ83a1gWcOBvwQfz1Mx4mp/sAJjfZNbSPhYcED5VG Svf5Gfqd9Mg= Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: 5.2.4 p3: When a signature is made over a key, the hash data starts with the octet 0x99, followed by a two-octet length of the key, and then body of the key packet. With respect to bindings in private key messages, I think the last part should be changed to: '..length of the key, and then the public portion of the key packet body.' -PK Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9OA9E9g020772; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:09:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9OA9E6W020771; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:09:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from p15139323.pureserver.info (silmor.de [217.160.219.75]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9OA9DMu020627 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 03:09:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from konrad@silmor.de) Received: from pd9e1feac.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.225.254.172] helo=zaphod.local) by p15139323.pureserver.info with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CLfJC-0007jD-00 for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:09:06 +0200 From: Konrad Rosenbaum To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:08:34 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1407073.pKzWvVF2ZB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200410241208.35246@zaphod.konrad.silmor.de> Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --nextPart1407073.pKzWvVF2ZB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 21 October 2004 04:01, Hironobu SUZUKI wrote: > "X.509 is a standard". It is true because we have no any alternative > choice for CA service in OpenPGP. It is hard to make OpenPGP CA > service because there is no trust model with certificate authority in > OpenPGP. Actually, all the necessary flags are there: section 5.2.3.12 Trust Signature (can be used for sub-CA signature). section 5/2.3.14 Revocation Key (necessary for some strictly hierachical CA= =20 models). section 5.2.3.20 Key Flags: 0x01 - this key may be used to certify other keys (read: Sub-CA) 0x02/0x04/0x08 - this key may be used to sign/encrypt data (read: user key) 0x10 - key escrow (minefield warning: partly patented by PGP Inc.) 0x80 - group key All that is left to do is: * implement support for this model in OpenPGP aware products * issue a list of trusted CAs (public keyring) suitable for your application Konrad --nextPart1407073.pKzWvVF2ZB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBe38jClt766LaIH0RAuDMAKCWUiNkOBEvRhSXQX7w35PcUi1jjACbBlHt jRJQHIgFw9i9KinQbZx6fTs= =0y/6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1407073.pKzWvVF2ZB-- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9NEpdHQ089208; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:51:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9NEpd7Z089207; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:51:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9NEpckT089201 for ; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:51:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9NEpU217901; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:51:35 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417A705F.2010407@systemics.com> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:53:19 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: rfc2440bis-11 - 2 more comments References: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: #1. Minor comment 4.2 Packet Headers "... Thus, software that interoperates with those versions of PGP must only use old format packets. If interoperability is not an issue, either format may be used." Setting it up for a future deprecation of the old format may be useful. In which case, it could be advantageous to prefer the new format. Some example text: "... Thus, software that interoperates with those versions of PGP must only use old format packets. If interoperability is not an issue, THE NEW PACKET FORMAT IS PREFERRED." #2 Medium Comment 13. Security Considerations ... * The MD5 hash algorithm has been found to have weaknesses (pseudo-collisions in the compress function) that make some people deprecate its use. They consider the SHA-1 algorithm better. I think it's fair to say that since the last draft, we've moved on beyond that. I'd suggest that MD5 should be deprecated. and applications SHOULD use SHA1 and for compatibility MAY accept MD5. Or somesuch. Now, that's either easy to say or hard to say, depending on whether one thinks that SHA1 is wobbly or safe. But, on the whole, I don't think it should stop us deprecating MD5 at this point in time. If that means that the document has a sort of hole in it, then so be it, mark it and let's move on. Before going on to deal with this - can we agree or discuss whether we should deprecate MD5 at this point? If we agree to do so, then it's just a matter of scanning for MD5 and doing the switcheroo. iang Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9MM6cI0024797; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:06:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9MM6cfu024794; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:06:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9MM6aoa024770 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:06:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9MM6M213685; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:06:33 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <417984DB.9020506@systemics.com> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:08:27 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt References: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Expires Apr 20, 2004 > Title : OpenPGP Message Format > Author(s) : J. Callas, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt > Pages : 72 > Date : 2004-10-22 The version I just downloaded says on every page: Expires Apr 20, 2004 Shouldn't that be 2005? iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9MK1A31094916; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:01:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9MK1AwM094915; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:01:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9MK19Xf094908 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:01:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dinaras@cnri.reston.va.us) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05187; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200410222001.QAA05187@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:01:12 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the An Open Specification for Pretty Good Privacy Working Group of the IETF. Title : OpenPGP Message Format Author(s) : J. Callas, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt Pages : 72 Date : 2004-10-22 This document is maintained in order to publish all necessary information needed to develop interoperable applications based on the OpenPGP format. It is not a step-by-step cookbook for writing an application. It describes only the format and methods needed to read, check, generate, and write conforming packets crossing any network. It does not deal with storage and implementation questions. It does, however, discuss implementation issues necessary to avoid security flaws. OpenPGP software uses a combination of strong public-key and symmetric cryptography to provide security services for electronic communications and data storage. These services include confidentiality, key management, authentication, and digital signatures. This document specifies the message formats used in OpenPGP. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-10-22161703.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-11.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-10-22161703.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LKk08s093651; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9LKk0Mv093650; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LKk0jV093643 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:02 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.235] ([63.251.255.25]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:46:01 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1A2DE99F-23A2-11D9-B29A-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Request for Agenda Items for DC IETF Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:45:11 -0700 To: Derek Atkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 21 Oct 2004, at 8:35 AM, Derek Atkins wrote: > > Hi, > > I plan to request a 1hour slot at the DC IETF so we can wrap up > 2440bis (hopefully). Anyone have any agenda items they'd like to > discuss at the meeting? > My opinion is that we don't need the slot. The few things we need to cover can (and should) be handled here. We're not the sort of group that needs face time. I am unlikely to be able to make it there, and anything that goes on there will have to happen here, too, so it just consumes more time to have the meeting. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LFZg5m018190; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:35:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9LFZgx7018189; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:35:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dogbert.ihtfp.org (me@DOGBERT.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.33]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LFZfnn018182 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:35:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from warlord@MIT.EDU) Received: (from warlord@localhost) by dogbert.ihtfp.org (8.12.9) id i9LFZhYY025917; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:35:43 -0400 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Request for Agenda Items for DC IETF From: Derek Atkins Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:35:42 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hi, I plan to request a 1hour slot at the DC IETF so we can wrap up 2440bis (hopefully). Anyone have any agenda items they'd like to discuss at the meeting? -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LFS3gm016469; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9LFS3uw016468; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from dogbert.ihtfp.org (me@DOGBERT.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.33]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LFS2ip016459 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:28:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from warlord@MIT.EDU) Received: (from warlord@localhost) by dogbert.ihtfp.org (8.12.9) id i9LFRcjI025790; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:27:38 -0400 To: Ian Grigg Cc: Jon Callas , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <869AB37A-22C6-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> <4177CD97.2050803@systemics.com> From: Derek Atkins Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:27:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4177CD97.2050803@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:54:15 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Ian Grigg writes: > Jon Callas wrote: >> >>> >>> I've been asked to speak at an Identity >>> conference and while I was musing on the >>> unsuitability of x.509/PKI for identity, >>> it occurred to me that one of the barriers >>> is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas >>> x.509 is. >>> >> Huh? OpenPGP isn't a standard? How? > > Specifically (bearing in mind the emphasis > outlined below on mindspace) we lack the completed > RFC. That will be a big help. Uhh, define "completed RFC". RFC2440 is completed, has been for several years. It's also an RFC. It will always be an RFC. RFC2440 will never change! There's the ongoing rfc2440bis work, which will hopefully complete soon and get turned into a new RFC with a new RFC number and will obsolete RFCs 1991 and 2440. But that does not obviate the fact that RFC 2440 is a published Proposed Standard on OpenPGP. So, your statement that "OpenPGP is not a standard" is clearly incorrect. -derek -- Derek Atkins 617-623-3745 derek@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com Computer and Internet Security Consultant Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LEqHqC006219; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9LEqHpI006218; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LEqG9h006212 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:52:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9LEpt204765; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:52:01 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <4177CD97.2050803@systemics.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:54:15 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <869AB37A-22C6-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <869AB37A-22C6-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Jon Callas wrote: > >> >> I've been asked to speak at an Identity >> conference and while I was musing on the >> unsuitability of x.509/PKI for identity, >> it occurred to me that one of the barriers >> is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas >> x.509 is. >> > > Huh? OpenPGP isn't a standard? How? Specifically (bearing in mind the emphasis outlined below on mindspace) we lack the completed RFC. That will be a big help. > In the last couple of years there's been a resurgence of OpenPGP-based > systems. I see new ones coming on line (usually in an email that says > something like, "Is this a competitor of yours?") about at the rate of > one every month or two, but I've gotten two of them this *week*. More > than one of these new people have contributed here. If anything, OpenPGP > is undergoing a renaissance right now. There are also other bits of > ground breaking on further adoption that I can't talk about, but I can > tell you that I don't see this pattern stopping. Well that's encouraging news. Is there any way we can get a picture on how many ventures out there are building RFC2440 systems? That's an open question! It would be nice if there was a list or a forum of apps or a group of people doing stuff. (There is this group, which is strictly standards focused, and the cryptorights mailing list that I am aware of.) > My products support both OpenPGP and X.509, and my official policy is to > be format agnostic. However, I'll say that while X.509 is a "standard" > it is a "standard" that you often have to make work by doing passive > fingerprinting on the certs. You look at it, infer what software or CA > created it, and special case the handling of the crypto system > accordingly. I'm not complaining, merely stating. For anyone who goes to > the trouble of walking the minefield of X.509 interoperability, this > "standard" is a huge barrier to entry to competition. Unlike OpenPGP, > where someone can knock off an interoperable system with a little bit of > work (hacking, if necessary your own previous systems and others like > the Perl module) and end up with something that works, X.509 takes > *work* to make interoperate, and this is a huge boon for anyone who > actually makes a living at this. Everything you say makes sense. But when I was mentioning barriers to entry, I was specifically thinking in terms of the institutional mindset. x.509 to them is telecoms, ISO, Verisign, billion dollar companies, and all the associated mindspace and presence that goes with a standard. Whereas OpenPGP is .. what? A bunch of net geeks mucking around with crypto mail. When they're not fighting the government they're fighting each other... In those terms, which are the terms that any company over a thousand employees buys on, x.509 is a standard, and OpenPGP is a frontier toy. These people have no capability to drill down through the sales blurb into what the software does, or the crypto does. These are the people who say "it is a standard if IBM says it is a standard." > Yes, yes, there are open source toolkits for X.509. I've used them. My > conclusion was that those nice folks at GeoTrust provide a good service > for the money, especially when I compute my own hourly rate and the fact > that I could otherwise be doing something fun. > > Be sure to tell them that, when you talk about the superiority of > "standards" to mere RFCs. :-) Oh, don't get me wrong - my part is on how to fix the broken x.509 models / how the RFC2440 model has delivered. But I feel it is important to try and work out why it is that these big buyers simply don't see the alternates. One of the answers is their mindset that the x.509 thing is a standard. And there isn't any competition to that mindspace. Not yet. Hence my suggestion that we start calling it RFC2440 rather than OpenPGP. (I'm throwing that out there more to point people at the issues rather than expecting it to be a valuable idea.) iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LEWows000291; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9LEWoGF000290; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:32:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9LEWmqg000274 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:32:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9LEWS204683; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:32:44 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <4177C907.2030405@systemics.com> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:34:47 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hironobu, Just some comments, while the list is quiet and awaiting the "last call!" You seem to be grasping on a definition of trust. OpenPGP does not define what the meaning of signatures from one user's key to another is. That is, if I sign your key, there is no meaning defined by the tech to what my signature should convey. That's because it is too difficult to do at that level. x.509/CA technologies try to do just that: define trust, and they fail miserably. They fail at defining trust for many many reasons, chief amongst which is that trust is a human quality that defies categorisation in bits and bytes. So in actuality your comments apply more to the x.509 and CA model: they are not effective for trust. They push something they call "trust" but its only relationship with the word we humans share is its spelling. Now recast to RFC2440 / OpenPGP. This technology is totally neutral to trust. It is neither effective nor ineffective - it simply doesn't define that. What it does do is provide a linking capability - from key to key - which is ideally aligned and suitable for mapping human, social and commerce patterns. (So, the web of trust is misnamed. It should be the web of links, or the web of relationships, or similar neutral terms.) Which is to say, if you have a vision of trust, you can build it in RFC2440. You won't be able to build it in x.509, because they already cast their "trust" in concrete and got it wrong. But, that's up to you - RFC2440 awaits your notions. Build and see if it works. I would however suggest that you not rely on the word "trust." That's a word that belongs in each and every person's head, not in tech. iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9L218cu006892; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:01:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9L218ak006891; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:01:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sea.h2np.net (sea.h2np.net [220.110.1.194]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9L217fq006820 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:01:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hironobu@h2np.net) Received: from lax.h2np.net ([220.110.1.195] helo=mail.h2np.net) by sea.h2np.net with esmtp (H2NP Email Service (Exim 3.35)) id 1CKSGH-0008GW-00 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:01:05 +0900 From: Hironobu SUZUKI To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:33:24 MST." <869AB37A-22C6-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 11:01:04 +0900 Message-Id: Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I'd like to write my comments. "X.509 is a standard". It is true because we have no any alternative choice for CA service in OpenPGP. It is hard to make OpenPGP CA service because there is no trust model with certificate authority in OpenPGP. Current version of "Web of Trust" is not effective for trustworthiness. See "Web of Trust" in Debian project. It looks as like "autograph please", "I have more autographs than you". But "Web of Trust" model is very flexible way and it has potential to make OpenPGP based CA model. I understand that OpenPGP based CA service must be there also. Please note that OpenPGP based CA service must be not only business domain but also community domain. Organizations, companies, school, class, projects and any size of community may have their own CA. It should be compared with "Student ID", "Member ID" and "Backstage ID". It should not be compared with "Passport ID", "Nation ID" and "Social ID". Fair identification is necessary for our life. Today, X.509 with OpenPGP is practical solution but ultimate solution is to make OpenPGP's "Web of Trust" model with certificate authority for our community. X.509 is OK but I'd would like to seek "something new for OpenPGP". I have a plan to make "Trusted Public Keyserver" that can provide public keys that owner-allowed to open public. Many public keys in public keyserver have garbage signatures and many OpenPGP users put their "please use this" public key in their web site, not public keyserver. OpenPKSD-TPK will be my answer. Finish this plan, I'd like to design "Trust model with OpenPGP based CA" and to implement it. I believe that the diversity is required to survive, is not the first step to the chaos. Regards, --- Hironobu SUZUKI (From Japan) E-Mail: hironobu @ h2np.net URL: http://h2np.net URL: http://openpksd.org Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KIY8oj099622; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:34:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KIY8Hb099621; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:34:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KIY7xn099614 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:34:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:34:10 -0700 Received: from [63.73.97.188] ([63.73.97.188]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:34:08 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <869AB37A-22C6-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:33:24 -0700 To: Ian Grigg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: > > I've been asked to speak at an Identity > conference and while I was musing on the > unsuitability of x.509/PKI for identity, > it occurred to me that one of the barriers > is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas > x.509 is. > Huh? OpenPGP isn't a standard? How? In the last couple of years there's been a resurgence of OpenPGP-based systems. I see new ones coming on line (usually in an email that says something like, "Is this a competitor of yours?") about at the rate of one every month or two, but I've gotten two of them this *week*. More than one of these new people have contributed here. If anything, OpenPGP is undergoing a renaissance right now. There are also other bits of ground breaking on further adoption that I can't talk about, but I can tell you that I don't see this pattern stopping. My products support both OpenPGP and X.509, and my official policy is to be format agnostic. However, I'll say that while X.509 is a "standard" it is a "standard" that you often have to make work by doing passive fingerprinting on the certs. You look at it, infer what software or CA created it, and special case the handling of the crypto system accordingly. I'm not complaining, merely stating. For anyone who goes to the trouble of walking the minefield of X.509 interoperability, this "standard" is a huge barrier to entry to competition. Unlike OpenPGP, where someone can knock off an interoperable system with a little bit of work (hacking, if necessary your own previous systems and others like the Perl module) and end up with something that works, X.509 takes *work* to make interoperate, and this is a huge boon for anyone who actually makes a living at this. Yes, yes, there are open source toolkits for X.509. I've used them. My conclusion was that those nice folks at GeoTrust provide a good service for the money, especially when I compute my own hourly rate and the fact that I could otherwise be doing something fun. Be sure to tell them that, when you talk about the superiority of "standards" to mere RFCs. :-) Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KIV5vM098942; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:31:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KIV563098941; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:31:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KIV39u098934 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:31:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9KIUX231777; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:30:44 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <4176AF25.7000108@systemics.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:32:05 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas CC: Werner Koch , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <38C01616-22C2-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <38C01616-22C2-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Jon, Excellent news! can you post a URL for us when it is up there. Thanks, iang Jon Callas wrote: > Sorry. I just sent out my latest version as bis-12. > > What's left, to my mind, is for me to go and fully deprecate V3 keys / > MD5. When I last looked at open issues with Derek, I'd put in words for > all issues anyone had where there was something actionable. After that, > as far as I'm concerned, we can put this into real last call. Yes, kill the V3. Less is better. iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KI4OEl092366; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KI4O4Y092365; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KI4NP9092357 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:04:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:04:10 -0700 Received: from [63.73.97.188] ([63.73.97.188]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:04:09 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed In-Reply-To: <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <38C01616-22C2-11D9-97F0-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org, Ian Grigg From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:02:35 -0700 To: Werner Koch X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: >> What is the status of the OpenPGP draft? > > IIRC, the latest draft has expired and is thus not anymore available > from the usual places. > Sorry. I just sent out my latest version as bis-12. What's left, to my mind, is for me to go and fully deprecate V3 keys / MD5. When I last looked at open issues with Derek, I'd put in words for all issues anyone had where there was something actionable. After that, as far as I'm concerned, we can put this into real last call. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KBlqjq094606; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:47:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KBlqan094605; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:47:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KBloFj094591 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:47:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKExz-0005nV-00 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:49:19 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKEpL-0000v9-V4; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:40:24 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <41762E8B.8050607@systemics.com> <87vfd5k924.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <4176400C.7080506@systemics.com> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:40:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4176400C.7080506@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:38:04 +0100") Message-ID: <87oeixk47s.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:38:04 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > Oh, indeed. BTW, do you have any statistics on that? Sorry no. I have not seen that companies publically announce that they now use encryption for their communication; probably because everyone would expects that communication is held confidential. > a third is reputation. Both of these are relatively > well served by the OpenPGP's web of trust, but they > are being ignored. Meanwhile, a lot of companies There are no widely used applications to support OpenPGP for that. I know one TLS implementaion capable of using OpenPGP keys but the usual web clients don't support it. It would be easy to use this with ssh and I expect to see it in the near future. > normally start with "why o why is there no button to > generate a self-signed x.509 key and start using it?" Even worse: My jabber client complains about self-signed certificates instead of displaying its fingerprint once for verification. > But, to underscore my earlier point, mail is not where > it's at. Traffic is moving to chat, and there is a > chance to re-engineer the comms architecture, as chat Although I don't like chat things very much, you are probably right. Salam-Shalom, Werner Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KAauwM064838; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:36:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KAauF4064837; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KAasW5064823 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:36:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9KAaX229810; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:36:44 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <4176400C.7080506@systemics.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:38:04 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Werner Koch CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <41762E8B.8050607@systemics.com> <87vfd5k924.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> In-Reply-To: <87vfd5k924.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:23:23 +0100, Ian Grigg said: >>the market, it has the support of all the major >>players, whereas rfc2440 has not, and it has the >>ISO label. All of these things equate to "it's > > > With respect to email encryption OpenPGP is the standard protocol most > people want to go with because it is kown to work. At least this is > what I hear from companies looking into ways to encrypt email. Oh, indeed. BTW, do you have any statistics on that? It would be very useful to get some hard or soft figures on it, because we continually come up against people believe their own world is the only world. But, my point is not about mail. Mail is but one application of OpenPGP. Another is identity, and a third is reputation. Both of these are relatively well served by the OpenPGP's web of trust, but they are being ignored. Meanwhile, a lot of companies have been trying for years to do identity in x.509 and failing dismally because of the constraints in that technology, and I don't think it is even possible to do reputation in x.509. > I only MS Outlook would allow to set the content-type explicitly - to > implement PGP/MIME - the remaining deployment problem would be > solvable. There's a lot wrong with Internet mail programs. I normally start with "why o why is there no button to generate a self-signed x.509 key and start using it?" But, to underscore my earlier point, mail is not where it's at. Traffic is moving to chat, and there is a chance to re-engineer the comms architecture, as chat is still an open market with competing protocols. So not being standard is not a draw back. The only thing of importance is whether it works and deploys quickly, and OpenPGP has a much better chance of that than any alternate. iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KA2svM046681; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:02:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9KA2s2A046675; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:02:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9KA2oLl046645 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:02:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKDKO-0002AB-00 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:04:20 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKDC7-0000qR-C2; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:47 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <41762E8B.8050607@systemics.com> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <41762E8B.8050607@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:23:23 +0100") Message-ID: <87vfd5k924.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:23:23 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > the market, it has the support of all the major > players, whereas rfc2440 has not, and it has the > ISO label. All of these things equate to "it's With respect to email encryption OpenPGP is the standard protocol most people want to go with because it is kown to work. At least this is what I hear from companies looking into ways to encrypt email. I only MS Outlook would allow to set the content-type explicitly - to implement PGP/MIME - the remaining deployment problem would be solvable. Shalom-Salam, Werner Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9K9MF66028812; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:22:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9K9MF3M028811; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:22:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9K9MDkR028786 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:22:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9K9Lp229548; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:22:02 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <41762E8B.8050607@systemics.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:23:23 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Werner Koch CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> In-Reply-To: <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Werner Koch wrote: > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:53:26 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > > >>What is the status of the OpenPGP draft? > > > IIRC, the latest draft has expired and is thus not anymore available > from the usual places. > > >>it occurred to me that one of the barriers >>is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas >>x.509 is. > > > I just checked the rfc-index and both, OpenPGP (rfc2440) and X.509 > PKIX profile (rfc3280), are in PROPOSED STANDARD status. You don't > want to call plain ISO X.509 a practically useful standard without > specifying a profile. Me, I wouldn't call x.509 practically useful in any contexts ;-) But the point is that it has the market, it has the support of all the major players, whereas rfc2440 has not, and it has the ISO label. All of these things equate to "it's a standard" without much drilling down into what that means. > We talked about moving to DRAFT status since mid 1999 with no result > though. Derek, any new plans on moving forward? Yes, I don't understand it. As I understand, about a year ago it was feature frozen, and a list of issues had to be cleaned up. iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9K7c1K3083870; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9K7c1A6083869; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:38:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9K7bxbr083817 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:38:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKB48-00060g-00 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:39:24 +0200 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1CKAvE-0007ra-Qj; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:30:12 +0200 To: Ian Grigg Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Status of RFC2440 References: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> From: Werner Koch Organisation: g10 Code GmbH X-Request-PGP: finger:wk@g10code.com X-PGP-KeyID: 5B0358A2 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:30:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> (Ian Grigg's message of "Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:53:26 +0100") Message-ID: <87is95lud7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:53:26 +0100, Ian Grigg said: > What is the status of the OpenPGP draft? IIRC, the latest draft has expired and is thus not anymore available from the usual places. > it occurred to me that one of the barriers > is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas > x.509 is. I just checked the rfc-index and both, OpenPGP (rfc2440) and X.509 PKIX profile (rfc3280), are in PROPOSED STANDARD status. You don't want to call plain ISO X.509 a practically useful standard without specifying a profile. We talked about moving to DRAFT status since mid 1999 with no result though. Derek, any new plans on moving forward? Shalom-Salam, Werner Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9JKq1qg039053; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:52:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i9JKq18H039052; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:52:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from www.enhyper.com (mailgate.enhyper.com [62.49.250.18]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9JKpx4B039024 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:52:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www.enhyper.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i9JKpd226165; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:51:50 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: www.enhyper.com: localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <41757EC6.70205@systemics.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:53:26 +0100 From: Ian Grigg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Status of RFC2440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: What is the status of the OpenPGP draft? I've been asked to speak at an Identity conference and while I was musing on the unsuitability of x.509/PKI for identity, it occurred to me that one of the barriers is that OpenPGP is not a standard, whereas x.509 is. Institutions put great store on standards (rightly or wrongly). Also, the "PGP" name is considered somewhat to be loony in many staid quarters. It would be thus doubly good to have a completed spec, so that we could say that a system conformed to RFC 2440, an internet identity architecture standard. (With all the normal marketing caveats of course!) iang