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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

dkg and I discussed this in our chairs' call today.
Given that the change to v6 is solely intended to
avoid a potential interop nightmare, and is not a
general spring-clean, we don't see rough consensus
to make changes here at this point.

That said, if someone were to create a merge-request
in the next day or two with a suggested change, and
if we see a clear WG consensus for that specific change,
then that could just about make it into the next rev.
So, if you strongly want that change, please create a
merge-request and raise that on the list. We don't plan
to wait for that though so if you want it, you need to
create that MR now.

Cheers,
S.

On 09/02/2023 11:00, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Someone has just pointed out to me that the 4880bis drafts uses some weird
> nonstandard OIDs for the 25519 algorithms, including private-enterprise
> OIDs and at least one that doesn't actually exist:
> 
> 1.3.6.1.4.1.11591.15.1 	9 	2B 06 01 04 01 DA 47 0F 01 	Ed25519 	EdDSA
> 1.3.6.1.4.1.3029.1.5.1 	10 	2B 06 01 04 01 97 55 01 05 01 	Curve25519 	ECDH
> 
> Perhaps these could be replaced with the standard ones from RFC 8410,
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8410.  A quick search indicates that this
> came up with Botan about five years ago:
> 
> https://github.com/randombit/botan/issues/1553
> 
> but was never addressed in the RFC draft.
> 
> Peter.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp