[Openpgp-dt] 20211011 DT meeting notes

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

OpenPGP DT meeting 20211011

Present

- Daniel H
- gniibe
- Justus
- dkg
- Stephen

# Agenda:

     the usual

# Next I-D for discussion at IETF-112:
     - modulo 64 being done and 66 rebased action is on SF to chat with 
Paul wrt I-D

# Specific Merge Requests (MRs):

## https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/64
     - Daniel H did some more work on table presentation
     - action on Daniel H: change byte->octet string

## https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/66
- action on DKG to rebase this based on 64 (once reviewed)

## https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/67
- closed by SF being OBE

If 64/66 ready for merging when sf chats with pw then ask for those to 
be included in merge. If not quite ready, see if we can wait for 'em...

# Teeing up some items for discussion where we expect resolution to hit 
an I-D after IETF-112...

1. MTI https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/48

2. IDs in transferable
   https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/49
   https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/42

3. EdDSA flavor (uncontroversial)
    https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/68

4. How will we know when we're done enough for a publication-request?
(dkg: part of that is to review the step-by-step branch to ensure that 
we've covered everything from rfc4880bis-draft-10)

order in which we'll chat about 'em: 3,1,2,4

## 3. https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/68
- OK with people on the call, ok to merge now for IETF-112 timeframe

## 1. https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/48
- Justus: suggests ECDH as MUSTs
- if we have a MUST for ECDH we need a MUST curve (or >1)
- "MUST support ECDH" yes
- 1 or more MTI curve?  yes
- p256 and/or x25519 ok? yes
- which or both? everyone ok with 25519
- is 448 anywhere here? not a MUST; a SHOULD (if your crypto library 
does it)
- p256? nobody in DT arguing for SHOULD

- EC signatures
- EdDSA is a MUST
- suggestion is: ed25519 as a MUST

GOT HERE on today's call, with above agreed by those on call, we'll pick 
up discussion of questions below next time

- what about ECDSA?
- maybe somewhere between don't-care and SHOULD
- regardless, the curve to map to is p256

- What about DSA/elgamal?
- is it time to drop/deprecate? if so, how?

- RSA as a SHOULD or MUST
- AEAD mode text is needed (and may be tricky)
- compression: CRIME => maybe better no SHOULD? or... 
(https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/openpgp-interoperability-test-suite/-/issues/64)
- why the change anyway?