From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Sat Nov 6 14:14:13 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 OAA28643 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 14:14:13 -0500 (EST) 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 iA6ImWe6018603; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 10:48:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA6ImWsd018602; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 10:48:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from yxa.extundo.com (root@178.230.13.217.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [217.13.230.178]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA6ImV8c018577 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 10:48:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jas@extundo.com) Received: from latte.josefsson.org (c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se [217.215.27.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Debian-15) with ESMTP id iA6ImWd1017328 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 19:48:33 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis From: Simon Josefsson X-Hashcash: 1:22:041106:ietf-openpgp@imc.org::g3XE6HmOxCHx6vty:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000pi+U Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:48:31 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on yxa-iv X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.75-1, clamav-milter version 0.75c on yxa-iv X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: All, RFC 2538 is being revised to improve the details regarding OpenPGP certificates, to promote interoperability. The point of the document is to store OpenPGP certificates and revocation information in DNS. I would appreciate if people here would look at the proposed update to see if it reference RFC 2440 properly. The document is available from: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-josefsson-rfc2538bis-00.txt In particular, the part that describe what goes into the data portion of OpenPGP CERT RRs now reads: The PGP type indicates an OpenPGP data packet. Two uses are to transfer public key material and revocation signatures. The data is binary, and MUST NOT be encoded into an ASCII armor. Public keys can use the OpenPGP public key packet (tag 6) or public subkey packet (tag 14), as described in section 5.5 of [5]. Revocation signatures can use an OpenPGP signature packet with a revocation signature type, i.e., signature type 0x20, 0x28 or 0x30, as described in section 5.2 of [5]. Is this correct? Would it be useful to mention other kind of OpenPGP data packets directly, as well? The owner name guidelines part of the document has been extended with the following text. To review this require some familiarity with DNS. Applications that receive an OpenPGP packet but do not know the email address of the sender will have difficulties guessing the correct owner name. However, the OpenPGP packet typically contain the Key ID of the key. Such applications can derive the owner name from the Key ID using an Base 16 encoding [8]. For example: $ORIGIN example.org. F835EDA21E94B565716F IN CERT PGP ... B565716F IN CNAME F835EDA21E94B565716F Again, if the same key material is stored at several owner names, using CNAME can be used to avoid data duplication. Further, if someone has additional thoughts on he document, now would be a good time to discuss them. If someone is interested in reviewing the differences in 2538bis compared to 2538, there is some additional resources available from: http://josefsson.org/rfc2538bis/ Since this work is not part of the OpenPGP WG charter, it is presumably safest to reply to me off-list. If you feel an on-list discussion can be tolerated, that could prove useful. Thanks, Simon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Sun Nov 7 08:44:57 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 IAA19167 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 08:44:57 -0500 (EST) 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 iA7DDivW045186; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 05:13:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA7DDim0045185; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 05:13:44 -0800 (PST) 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 iA7DDa49045058 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 05:13:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fw@deneb.enyo.de) Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by albireo.enyo.de with esmtp id 1CQmrG-0004px-AO; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:13:26 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CQmrF-0001fk-DU; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:13:25 +0100 To: Simon Josefsson Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis References: From: Florian Weimer Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:13:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Simon Josefsson's message of "Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:48:31 +0100") Message-ID: <874qk1kdje.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: * Simon Josefsson: > Is this correct? Would it be useful to mention other kind of OpenPGP > data packets directly, as well? Why do you want to duplicate this information? > Further, if someone has additional thoughts on he document, now would > be a good time to discuss them. $ gpg --export "68FD549F" | wc -c 88127 Some OpenPGP certificates may have to be split across multiple resource records. Maybe DNS isn't such a great place to store them after all. 8-/ In the URI type, it would be nice if some hashes are included. As a result, the protection offered by DNSSEC one day would extend to the referenced document. NAPTR records offer an interesting perspective for mapping domains (and email address) to certificate references. Such records could look like this one: _openpgp.example.org IN NAPTR 10 10 "u" "PGP+D2U" "!^(.*)@example.org$!http://ca.example.org/lookup.cgi?user=\\1!" (Some fields are probably completely wrong, I'm not well-versed in NAPTR records yet.) From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 23 15:35:31 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 PAA21674 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:35:31 -0500 (EST) 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 iANK6kto007091; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANK6kl1007090; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:46 -0800 (PST) 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 iANK6jmA007080 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rbunch@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 PAA17032; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:06:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200411232006.PAA17032@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-12.txt Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:06:47 -0500 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-12.txt Pages : 72 Date : 2004-11-23 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-12.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-12.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-12.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: <2004-11-23141810.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-12.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-12.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-11-23141810.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 23 16:10:22 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 QAA01134 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:10:21 -0500 (EST) 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 iANKuOGN020866; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:56:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANKuOcP020865; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:56:24 -0800 (PST) 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 iANKuOdp020843 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:56:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <200411232056220150010jnee>; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:56:23 +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 iANKuLLO003463 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:56:21 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iANKuHe21257 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:56:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:56:17 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis Message-ID: <20041123205617.GA21180@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 (92% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 07:48:31PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Applications that receive an OpenPGP packet but do not know the email > address of the sender will have difficulties guessing the correct > owner name. However, the OpenPGP packet typically contain the Key ID > of the key. Such applications can derive the owner name from the Key > ID using an Base 16 encoding [8]. For example: > > $ORIGIN example.org. > F835EDA21E94B565716F IN CERT PGP ... > B565716F IN CNAME F835EDA21E94B565716F > > Again, if the same key material is stored at several owner names, > using CNAME can be used to avoid data duplication. One of the things that struck me when reading this draft is that while there are several suggested ways to name keys in DNS, there is no one canonical name as a SHOULD or MUST. I suggest that the key fingerprint be the canonical name, and all others be CNAMEs pointing to the fingerprint name. I have general concerns about the size of OpenPGP keys in DNS, but I wonder if DNS would be a good way to distribute revocation certificates in a low-overhead sort of way. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 22:09:29 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 WAA18463 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:09:29 -0500 (EST) 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 iB12q7Pj024810; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:52:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB12q7nV024808; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:52:07 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB12q6Tf024764 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:52:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf-ietf-openpgp@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZKbE-0003hQ-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:52:12 +0100 Received: from c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se ([217.215.27.65]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:52:12 +0100 Received: from jas by c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:52:12 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Simon Josefsson Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:52:01 +0100 Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <20041123205617.GA21180@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se OpenPGP: id=0xB565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt X-Hashcash: 1:23:041201:gmane.ietf.openpgp::hf1ghtoI1nds6uTy:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000S6ib User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:clt2g/GusJg5eQXWyHNxJRwVlFo= Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw writes: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 07:48:31PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Applications that receive an OpenPGP packet but do not know the email >> address of the sender will have difficulties guessing the correct >> owner name. However, the OpenPGP packet typically contain the Key ID >> of the key. Such applications can derive the owner name from the Key >> ID using an Base 16 encoding [8]. For example: >> >> $ORIGIN example.org. >> F835EDA21E94B565716F IN CERT PGP ... >> B565716F IN CNAME F835EDA21E94B565716F >> >> Again, if the same key material is stored at several owner names, >> using CNAME can be used to avoid data duplication. > > One of the things that struck me when reading this draft is that > while there are several suggested ways to name keys in DNS, there is > no one canonical name as a SHOULD or MUST. I suggest that the key > fingerprint be the canonical name, and all others be CNAMEs pointing > to the fingerprint name. I'm aware of this, and it is a touchy issue. I was trying to avoid it. Traditionally, few RR types enforce rules for the owner name. It may be contentious to add this. I'll add an open issue: whether to enforce owner name guidelines with SHOULD/MUST. > I have general concerns about the size of OpenPGP keys in DNS, but I > wonder if DNS would be a good way to distribute revocation > certificates in a low-overhead sort of way. Right. If there were no SHOULD/MUST on the owner name rules, perhaps storing revocation certificates under "rev-0xB565716F" would work, which might avoid storing both the key itself and the revocation information under the same name. If they are stored under the same, the response would include both, and be large, so the advantage of using DNS as a light-weight revocation checking infrastructure is lessened. Thanks, Simon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Nov 30 22:57:30 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 WAA18462 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:09:29 -0500 (EST) 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 iB12jSn3021695; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:45:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB12jSGX021694; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:45:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB12jKtK021602 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:45:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf-ietf-openpgp@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZKUf-0003MQ-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:45:25 +0100 Received: from c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se ([217.215.27.65]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:45:25 +0100 Received: from jas by c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:45:25 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Simon Josefsson Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:45:18 +0100 Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <874qk1kdje.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se OpenPGP: id=0xB565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt X-Hashcash: 1:23:041201:gmane.ietf.openpgp::MzNUVLmRw+bynjLP:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000008fvJ User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:3ALmS4zO1tfmCLlwvh0Kl/pMK9g= Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Florian Weimer writes: > * Simon Josefsson: > >> Is this correct? Would it be useful to mention other kind of OpenPGP >> data packets directly, as well? > > Why do you want to duplicate this information? Are you saying any OpenPGP data in the CERT RR should be permitted? I think RFC 2538 was unclear on this, but it seems clear that at least it was intended to store self-signed OpenPGP keys. Given that X.509 CRLs are supported by the same document, one could argue that OpenPGP revocation certs should be permitted as well. But any OpenPGP data? The text currently says: Public keys can use the OpenPGP public key packet (tag 6) or public subkey packet (tag 14), as described in section 5.5 of [5]. Revocation signatures can use an OpenPGP signature packet with a revocation signature type, i.e., signature type 0x20, 0x28 or 0x30, as described in section 5.2 of [5]. It was mostly meant to illustrate that OpenPGP data is sub-typed. I don't have a preference, but I think the updated document should be clear on exactly what kind of data may be stored in the RDATA portion. Permitting any OpenPGP data may a simple solution. >> Further, if someone has additional thoughts on he document, now would >> be a good time to discuss them. > > $ gpg --export "68FD549F" | wc -c > 88127 > > Some OpenPGP certificates may have to be split across multiple > resource records. Maybe DNS isn't such a great place to store them > after all. 8-/ This is certainly a problem. The update should at least acknowledge this. There are some ideas on how to solve the problem in draft-josefsson-cert-openpgp.txt, but I'm not sure it is a good idea. > In the URI type, it would be nice if some hashes are included. As a > result, the protection offered by DNSSEC one day would extend to the > referenced document. That seem to be a good suggestion, I'll add it. > NAPTR records offer an interesting perspective for mapping domains > (and email address) to certificate references. Such records could > look like this one: > > _openpgp.example.org IN NAPTR 10 10 "u" "PGP+D2U" > "!^(.*)@example.org$!http://ca.example.org/lookup.cgi?user=\\1!" Right, but that is out of scope for 2538bis. Thanks, Simon 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 iB12q7Pj024810; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:52:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB12q7nV024808; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:52:07 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB12q6Tf024764 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:52:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf-ietf-openpgp@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZKbE-0003hQ-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:52:12 +0100 Received: from c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se ([217.215.27.65]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:52:12 +0100 Received: from jas by c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:52:12 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Simon Josefsson Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:52:01 +0100 Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <20041123205617.GA21180@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se OpenPGP: id=0xB565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt X-Hashcash: 1:23:041201:gmane.ietf.openpgp::hf1ghtoI1nds6uTy:0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000S6ib User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:clt2g/GusJg5eQXWyHNxJRwVlFo= Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw writes: > On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 07:48:31PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> Applications that receive an OpenPGP packet but do not know the email >> address of the sender will have difficulties guessing the correct >> owner name. However, the OpenPGP packet typically contain the Key ID >> of the key. Such applications can derive the owner name from the Key >> ID using an Base 16 encoding [8]. For example: >> >> $ORIGIN example.org. >> F835EDA21E94B565716F IN CERT PGP ... >> B565716F IN CNAME F835EDA21E94B565716F >> >> Again, if the same key material is stored at several owner names, >> using CNAME can be used to avoid data duplication. > > One of the things that struck me when reading this draft is that > while there are several suggested ways to name keys in DNS, there is > no one canonical name as a SHOULD or MUST. I suggest that the key > fingerprint be the canonical name, and all others be CNAMEs pointing > to the fingerprint name. I'm aware of this, and it is a touchy issue. I was trying to avoid it. Traditionally, few RR types enforce rules for the owner name. It may be contentious to add this. I'll add an open issue: whether to enforce owner name guidelines with SHOULD/MUST. > I have general concerns about the size of OpenPGP keys in DNS, but I > wonder if DNS would be a good way to distribute revocation > certificates in a low-overhead sort of way. Right. If there were no SHOULD/MUST on the owner name rules, perhaps storing revocation certificates under "rev-0xB565716F" would work, which might avoid storing both the key itself and the revocation information under the same name. If they are stored under the same, the response would include both, and be large, so the advantage of using DNS as a light-weight revocation checking infrastructure is lessened. Thanks, Simon 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 iB12jSn3021695; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:45:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iB12jSGX021694; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:45:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iB12jKtK021602 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:45:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ietf-ietf-openpgp@gmane.org) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CZKUf-0003MQ-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:45:25 +0100 Received: from c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se ([217.215.27.65]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:45:25 +0100 Received: from jas by c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:45:25 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org From: Simon Josefsson Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:45:18 +0100 Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <874qk1kdje.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se OpenPGP: id=0xB565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt X-Hashcash: 1:23:041201:gmane.ietf.openpgp::MzNUVLmRw+bynjLP:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000008fvJ User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:3ALmS4zO1tfmCLlwvh0Kl/pMK9g= Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Florian Weimer writes: > * Simon Josefsson: > >> Is this correct? Would it be useful to mention other kind of OpenPGP >> data packets directly, as well? > > Why do you want to duplicate this information? Are you saying any OpenPGP data in the CERT RR should be permitted? I think RFC 2538 was unclear on this, but it seems clear that at least it was intended to store self-signed OpenPGP keys. Given that X.509 CRLs are supported by the same document, one could argue that OpenPGP revocation certs should be permitted as well. But any OpenPGP data? The text currently says: Public keys can use the OpenPGP public key packet (tag 6) or public subkey packet (tag 14), as described in section 5.5 of [5]. Revocation signatures can use an OpenPGP signature packet with a revocation signature type, i.e., signature type 0x20, 0x28 or 0x30, as described in section 5.2 of [5]. It was mostly meant to illustrate that OpenPGP data is sub-typed. I don't have a preference, but I think the updated document should be clear on exactly what kind of data may be stored in the RDATA portion. Permitting any OpenPGP data may a simple solution. >> Further, if someone has additional thoughts on he document, now would >> be a good time to discuss them. > > $ gpg --export "68FD549F" | wc -c > 88127 > > Some OpenPGP certificates may have to be split across multiple > resource records. Maybe DNS isn't such a great place to store them > after all. 8-/ This is certainly a problem. The update should at least acknowledge this. There are some ideas on how to solve the problem in draft-josefsson-cert-openpgp.txt, but I'm not sure it is a good idea. > In the URI type, it would be nice if some hashes are included. As a > result, the protection offered by DNSSEC one day would extend to the > referenced document. That seem to be a good suggestion, I'll add it. > NAPTR records offer an interesting perspective for mapping domains > (and email address) to certificate references. Such records could > look like this one: > > _openpgp.example.org IN NAPTR 10 10 "u" "PGP+D2U" > "!^(.*)@example.org$!http://ca.example.org/lookup.cgi?user=\\1!" Right, but that is out of scope for 2538bis. Thanks, Simon 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 iANKuOGN020866; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:56:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANKuOcP020865; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:56:24 -0800 (PST) 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 iANKuOdp020843 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:56:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <200411232056220150010jnee>; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:56:23 +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 iANKuLLO003463 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:56:21 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iANKuHe21257 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:56:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:56:17 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis Message-ID: <20041123205617.GA21180@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 (92% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 07:48:31PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Applications that receive an OpenPGP packet but do not know the email > address of the sender will have difficulties guessing the correct > owner name. However, the OpenPGP packet typically contain the Key ID > of the key. Such applications can derive the owner name from the Key > ID using an Base 16 encoding [8]. For example: > > $ORIGIN example.org. > F835EDA21E94B565716F IN CERT PGP ... > B565716F IN CNAME F835EDA21E94B565716F > > Again, if the same key material is stored at several owner names, > using CNAME can be used to avoid data duplication. One of the things that struck me when reading this draft is that while there are several suggested ways to name keys in DNS, there is no one canonical name as a SHOULD or MUST. I suggest that the key fingerprint be the canonical name, and all others be CNAMEs pointing to the fingerprint name. I have general concerns about the size of OpenPGP keys in DNS, but I wonder if DNS would be a good way to distribute revocation certificates in a low-overhead sort of way. 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 iANK6kto007091; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iANK6kl1007090; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:46 -0800 (PST) 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 iANK6jmA007080 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:06:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rbunch@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 PAA17032; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:06:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200411232006.PAA17032@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-12.txt Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:06:47 -0500 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-12.txt Pages : 72 Date : 2004-11-23 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-12.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-12.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-12.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: <2004-11-23141810.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-12.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-12.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-11-23141810.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 iA7DDivW045186; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 05:13:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA7DDim0045185; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 05:13:44 -0800 (PST) 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 iA7DDa49045058 for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 05:13:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fw@deneb.enyo.de) Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by albireo.enyo.de with esmtp id 1CQmrG-0004px-AO; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:13:26 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CQmrF-0001fk-DU; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:13:25 +0100 To: Simon Josefsson Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis References: From: Florian Weimer Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:13:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Simon Josefsson's message of "Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:48:31 +0100") Message-ID: <874qk1kdje.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: * Simon Josefsson: > Is this correct? Would it be useful to mention other kind of OpenPGP > data packets directly, as well? Why do you want to duplicate this information? > Further, if someone has additional thoughts on he document, now would > be a good time to discuss them. $ gpg --export "68FD549F" | wc -c 88127 Some OpenPGP certificates may have to be split across multiple resource records. Maybe DNS isn't such a great place to store them after all. 8-/ In the URI type, it would be nice if some hashes are included. As a result, the protection offered by DNSSEC one day would extend to the referenced document. NAPTR records offer an interesting perspective for mapping domains (and email address) to certificate references. Such records could look like this one: _openpgp.example.org IN NAPTR 10 10 "u" "PGP+D2U" "!^(.*)@example.org$!http://ca.example.org/lookup.cgi?user=\\1!" (Some fields are probably completely wrong, I'm not well-versed in NAPTR records yet.) 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 iA6ImWe6018603; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 10:48:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iA6ImWsd018602; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 10:48:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from yxa.extundo.com (root@178.230.13.217.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [217.13.230.178]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA6ImV8c018577 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 10:48:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jas@extundo.com) Received: from latte.josefsson.org (c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se [217.215.27.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Debian-15) with ESMTP id iA6ImWd1017328 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK) for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 19:48:33 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis From: Simon Josefsson X-Hashcash: 1:22:041106:ietf-openpgp@imc.org::g3XE6HmOxCHx6vty:00000000000000000000000000000000000000000pi+U Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:48:31 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on yxa-iv X-Virus-Scanned: clamd / ClamAV version 0.75-1, clamav-milter version 0.75c on yxa-iv X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: All, RFC 2538 is being revised to improve the details regarding OpenPGP certificates, to promote interoperability. The point of the document is to store OpenPGP certificates and revocation information in DNS. I would appreciate if people here would look at the proposed update to see if it reference RFC 2440 properly. The document is available from: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-josefsson-rfc2538bis-00.txt In particular, the part that describe what goes into the data portion of OpenPGP CERT RRs now reads: The PGP type indicates an OpenPGP data packet. Two uses are to transfer public key material and revocation signatures. The data is binary, and MUST NOT be encoded into an ASCII armor. Public keys can use the OpenPGP public key packet (tag 6) or public subkey packet (tag 14), as described in section 5.5 of [5]. Revocation signatures can use an OpenPGP signature packet with a revocation signature type, i.e., signature type 0x20, 0x28 or 0x30, as described in section 5.2 of [5]. Is this correct? Would it be useful to mention other kind of OpenPGP data packets directly, as well? The owner name guidelines part of the document has been extended with the following text. To review this require some familiarity with DNS. Applications that receive an OpenPGP packet but do not know the email address of the sender will have difficulties guessing the correct owner name. However, the OpenPGP packet typically contain the Key ID of the key. Such applications can derive the owner name from the Key ID using an Base 16 encoding [8]. For example: $ORIGIN example.org. F835EDA21E94B565716F IN CERT PGP ... B565716F IN CNAME F835EDA21E94B565716F Again, if the same key material is stored at several owner names, using CNAME can be used to avoid data duplication. Further, if someone has additional thoughts on he document, now would be a good time to discuss them. If someone is interested in reviewing the differences in 2538bis compared to 2538, there is some additional resources available from: http://josefsson.org/rfc2538bis/ Since this work is not part of the OpenPGP WG charter, it is presumably safest to reply to me off-list. If you feel an on-list discussion can be tolerated, that could prove useful. Thanks, Simon