Hi Stephen,
On Thu, July 7, 2016 7:33 am, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Derek,
On 07/07/16 12:21, Derek Atkins wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, July 7, 2016 5:23 am, Stephen Farrell wrote:
[snip]
http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04780
The discussion of the relative merits of those would be better
on cfrg. (I don't recall the latter having been posted there
for example, but I do recall hearing about/seeing it before
somewhere.)
You brought up a paper showing a weak key/keyset and said there was no
response, I pointed out a response. I wasn't trying to discuss relative
merits and agree this is not the place to do so. But you started it ;)
[snip]
Note again that it's just reserving the number; it's completely
underspecified.
The patch mentioned AE methods explicitly. Allocating codepoints
for underspecified algorithms would seem pretty odd.
There are other "reserved for.." code points. And there are other
"underspecified" code points, too. So there is already precedent. C.f.
X9.42 (code point 21).
[snip]
So I've no clue how this WG or the openpgp community regard
squatting but if codepoints aren't scarce marking some as
reserved could be an option. (FWIW, I'm not fussed about doing
such things if codepoints aren't scarce.)
It's an 8-bit field. There are currently 21 allocated, with #22 in line
for EdDSA, and me asking for 23 and 24. So still under 10% utilized. I'm
not sure if you consider this scarce or not. I don't; I don't expect
there to be a ton of new public key algorithms out there. Even if we
expect another two dozen in the *next* 30 years, that would still put us
only to 20% utilized.
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp