[openpgp] Re: Encryption subkey selection

Justus Winter <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.openpgp
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hey list :)

Daniel Huigens <[email protected]> writes:

> I agree that it would be good to reach a consensus on this, and that
> if we assume that we want to support one-subkey-per-device setups
> (e.g. for use with integrated HSMs, to be able to generate a key
> on each of your devices in hardware), which seemed to be the
> conclusion from the multi-device session at the summit,
> then we probably need some mechanism for that.
>
> _However_, I want to raise one specific potential solution that
> Patrick Brunschwig proposed in that session, which is a variant of
> "List of sets of subkeys", but rather than introducing some new
> encoding for this, we could simply say: each certificate is such
> a list of subkeys. In other words, we pick the first certificate,
> see if it's usable, if so use all valid encryption subkeys in that
> certificate. If not, try the next certificate. And so on.
>
> This means that, to migrate to a new encryption algorithm, you also
> need to generate a new certificate. Often we want to do that anyway:
> in the migration from RSA to ECC, and ECC to PQC, we've introduced
> both new encryption algorithms and new signing algorithms.
>
> I know this goes a bit against what I've said previously and also
> conflicts with the concept of "certificate equivalence" in the
> key replacement draft (because multiple subkeys across linked certs
> would then not behave the same as multiple subkeys in a single cert).
> _But_ if we all agree that we need some mechanism for this then
> I think it's best to pick the simplest possible mechanism.

That indeed sounds like a simple solution.  And I agree that we should
get more comfortable with primary key rotations, so I'm not too worried
with tying subkey rotations with primary key rotations.

Best,
Justus

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 584 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=IY71
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.