[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue with RFC4880 IANA Registrations
I've been working offline with the IANA to get the OpenPGP registries
in place and we've hit a snag, so I figured I'd write the working
group to see how we as a WG want to proceed. The snag appears to be a
missing registry creation task in regards to Notation Data flags.
Section 220.127.116.11 (Notation Data) has the following:
(4 octets of flags, 2 octets of name length (M),
2 octets of value length (N),
M octets of name data,
N octets of value data)
This subpacket describes a "notation" on the signature that the
issuer wishes to make. The notation has a name and a value, each of
which are strings of octets. There may be more than one notation in
a signature. Notations can be used for any extension the issuer of
the signature cares to make. The "flags" field holds four octets of
All undefined flags MUST be zero. Defined flags are as follows:
First octet: 0x80 = human-readable. This note value is text.
Other octets: none.
The IANA Considerations section says:
10.2.2.1. Signature Notation Data Subpackets
OpenPGP signatures further contain a mechanism for extensions in
signatures. These are the Notation Data subpackets, which contain a
key/value pair. Notations contain a user space that is completely
unmanaged and an IETF space.
This specification creates a registry of Signature Notation Data
types. The registry includes the Signature Notation Data type, the
name of the Signature Notation Data, its allowed values, and a
reference to the defining specification. The initial values for this
registry can be found in Section 18.104.22.168. Adding a new Signature
Notation Data subpacket MUST be done through the EXPERT REVIEW
method, as described in [RFC2434].
There seems to be a disconnect between these two sections. My reading
of 10.2.2.1 is that there's a registry of the notation names, of which
there don't appear to be any defined in 22.214.171.124. However there
doesn't appear to be a registry of the "flags", of which there IS a
single entry (0x80) defined in 126.96.36.199.
So did we miss a needed registry or Notation Data Flags? Or are the
labels in 10.2.2.1 just not the same as the labels in 188.8.131.52 and the
label disconnect is causing confusion?
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
Computer and Internet Security Consultant