IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Can the OpenPGP vs. S/MIME situation be fixed?

Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma@singpolyma.net> Thu, 04 August 2016 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <singpolyma@singpolyma.net>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D5112DA41 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 07:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=singpolyma.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mKpM7303KuWb for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from singpolyma.net (singpolyma.net [IPv6:2607:5300:60:9e74:1000::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A43012DA1A for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 07:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by singpolyma.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 275D4486080C; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 14:35:06 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=singpolyma.net; s=iweb; t=1470321306; bh=Ab59crJG4RPHlua1RMNcbgRgwoHi37JLrtENKk9xQJA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=VZ7vAoScdmifElHWAlhoW5d7V6lMn5Vxew+mQCnxM7CvCCtzkGC7376OG99kJdcWA 4nkKZ8uaawVpn4dDN11EePEzJabry7VhxYbMbwwAhakARInCTTKrz8pVRmcf0b+kpK lTg2rUnQiHEtfKzhxKmPjgtgNn3ImyJyApRT3X20=
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 09:35:04 -0500
From: Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma@singpolyma.net>
To: Hanno Böck <hanno@hboeck.de>
Message-ID: <20160804143504.GD3918@singpolyma.net>
References: <20160701153304.332d2c95@pc1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UHN/qo2QbUvPLonB"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160701153304.332d2c95@pc1>
Jabber-ID: singpolyma@singpolyma.net
OpenPGP: id=CE519CDE; url=https://singpolyma.net/public.asc
X-URL: https://singpolyma.net
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/0ikezSeeKBdEfN6lpNHnjFB9U_Y>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Can the OpenPGP vs. S/MIME situation be fixed?
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 14:35:09 -0000

>I think it was a big mistake to create two competing standards in the
>first place, but that was back in the 90s. So we may ask if we want to
>live forever with this situation or if it can be fixed.

If we can convince any CAs to start issuing OpenPGP signatures, then OpenPGP 
already has the features to support this mode of operation.  So it's really 
just about formats / software support, etc.

-- 
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
See <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted
edition right joseph

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email