Re: [openpgp] Weird OIDs in the 4880bis draft

[Paul Schaub <[e-mail]>]

Heyo!

I like the changes from !242. You have my axe.

Paul

Am 20. Februar 2023 20:17:47 MEZ schrieb Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>:
>
>Hiya,
>
>On 20/02/2023 19:01, Daniel Huigens wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> After discussing with Justus, dkg and Stephen, I've added the Curve25519
>> OIDs back into [!242], but marked as legacy (as Justus did in !240).
>> That way, they can still be referenced easily, but we still make it
>> clear that the new algorithm IDs are preferable. This doesn't simplify
>> the spec as much as before, but it's also a less radical change, and it
>> will still simplify greenfield implementations a lot. In a way, I think
>> it's a good compromise between the two MRs. And I believe that it now
>> represents the option we'd both be most happy with :)
>
>Ok, so given the proponents are now happy with this merge
>request can other people please take a look and express an
>opinion on the list as to whether we should make these
>changes now.
>
>Please do so by the end of Wednesday if you can.
>
>Silence on the list I guess has to mean not making these
>changes.
>
>Thanks,
>Stephen.
>
>> 
>> Best,
>> Daniel
>> 
>> [!242]: https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/242
>> 
>> 
>> ------- Original Message -------
>> On Friday, February 17th, 2023 at 23:26, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> 
>>> Hiya,
>>> 
>> 
>>> On 17/02/2023 22:19, Daniel Huigens wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>>>> I support this change.
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Noted.
>>> 
>> 
>>>> I don't want to muddy the waters too much, but I've also created [!242]
>>>> as an alternative to this, which defines new algorithm IDs for Ed25519,
>>>> Ed448, X25519, and X448.
>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>>> Hmm. Can you and Justus not get together please and kill one
>>> of those MRs? Muddy waters may be great for music, but less
>>> so for getting the last few things finally done where the WG
>>> has previously failed to get things over the line.
>>> 
>> 
>>> S.