Re: [openpgp] [internet-drafts@ietf.org] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-10.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 02 September 2020 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 6E15C3A0C73 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 HS1CeyLU4Zvt for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1CAA3A0C68 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BhXxv56b2z3BH; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:48:03 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1599072483; bh=groCZBw6zreYfVlRLF5KuQeZfUSXRMUtDDdBKFcDI0U=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=R7WTgafUZSImMADpWX70JVISJu3GPfqAQm4tcqx/O5YkRh8oIzk2c56j3wVkyhXpO 2R1wN0TFh3v2yDgNDAq9VZZ/izTlo8jfxMeoYYY4mnE7IZ9h2LjjvGQYN4UjywtoG+ Qd5ZDm1qtzr5UsNGJACsjdpeH/Y3Q+rIcPtLwlfE=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id axDkwRl2Egnv; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:48:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:48:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 72AB16020F13; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:48:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A28D669F1; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:48:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 14:48:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
cc: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>, openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <87r1rkys6m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2009021446110.850851@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <87pn763mvq.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2009021248000.848176@bofh.nohats.ca> <faf8cb6e433e259dff5f8554fbf4e9eb.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org> <87r1rkys6m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/VKcGA_VTxwZFGdn8fFDsKf_N0kg>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] [internet-drafts@ietf.org] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 18:48:09 -0000

On Wed, 2 Sep 2020, Werner Koch wrote:

>> I don't know about the former; the latter was mostly consensus.  I think I
>
> The former was proposed a couple of years ago and iirc, I was a major
> voice against.  Meanwhile, afterh the meltdown of the keyserver network
> we should bite the bullet an do it like it has always been done in CMS.
>
> Better have a dedicated subpacket than having everyone squeezing it into
> a proprietary notation.

That does not answer my question though.

Was this discussed in the working group? Why was it changed now in this
revision. The reason I'm asking is because people have said in the past
that changes were introduced by an author without WG consensus, so I'd
like to know if these two material changes have seen proper discussion.

Paul