[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IETF-63 Proceedings Submission



Of course this didn't make it into the minutes; this messages
happened well after the IETF met in August.  The minutes are a
status report of the IETF meeting;  It does not take into account
messages that have been processed *since* the IETF.

-derek

And no, we're not in final call, yet.  I need to catch up and
make sure we've handled all the open issues.  I'll see if I
can get to that this week.

Ian G <iang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Derek Atkins wrote:
>>         - If you want changes in wording - need to be compatable and suggest text.
>>         - Only open issue is David Shaw's BNF request for literal+literal.  No reason not to include David Shaw's request, but not in draft 14.  Should go into 15
>
> I guess the below didn't make it then.  Oh well.
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Signature types
> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:25:07 +0100
> From: Ian G <iang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/
> To: ietf-openpgp@xxxxxxx
> References: <20050827075018.GA17967@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
>> ... [some stuff]
>
> On that section, but not on Daniel's question, it occurs to
> me that the caveat found half way down ("Please note that
> the vagueness...") could be usefully expanded to cover all
> of 5.2.1.
>
> Something like:
>
> 5.2.1. Signature Types
>
>   There are a number of possible meanings for a signature.
>   By convention, OpenPGP suggests meanings by the following
>   signature type octets in any given signature.
>
>   Please note that the vagueness of these signature claims
>   is not a flaw, but a feature of the system.  Cryptographic
>   signing technology alone cannot make these claims true,
>   and a relying party would need to examine the intentions
>   of any signer, and the wider context of the system and
>   environment in order to assess any claims.  OpenPGP places
>   final authority and responsibility on the receiver of any
>   signature.
>
>   0x01:...
>
> Which then allows a simplification of the post-0x13 comment:
>
>   0x13:...
>
>     Please note that one authority's casual certification
>     might be more rigorous than some other authority's
>     positive certification. These classifications allow a
>     certification authority to issue fine-grained claims.
>
>     Most OpenPGP implementations make their "key signatures" as 0x10
>     certifications. Some implementations can issue 0x11-0x13
>     certifications, but few differentiate between the types.
>
>
> As an alternate, such general commentary could append to the
> end of the section - but in legal terms, if it is a warning
> as to limitations, it should be at the front.  Given the
> somewhat poisoned waters of digital signatures, I'd prefer
> to see the disclaims before any claims.
>
> iang
>
> PS: are we in final call already?
>
>
>
>

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@xxxxxxxxx             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant