Re: [openpgp] a new draft overlapping the WG draft

As a developer and maintainer of an independent implementation of the
OpenPGP spec for iOS (iPGMail app), I am strongly in favor of a unified
single standard that all implementers can follow without having to add lots
of exceptional edge case handlers to be compatible with one particular
implementation, regardless of that implementations widespread installed
user base.

I've always strived to maintain compatibility against GnuPG as that is what
most of the user's have come to expect.  If someone sends a message using
GnuPG, they expect it to be accepted and processed by their OpenPGP app of
choice, and vice-versa.  Anything that breaks this trust with the end-users
is detrimental to the community as a whole, obviously.  PGP in general is
already held in low regard by many due to its complexity and difficulty to
manage.  Adding more complexity and confusion to the mix isn't helping
anyone.

I support the crypto-refresh document as the way forward, but am still
holding out hope that Werner will come back to the table and the parties
can hammer out some sort of compromise and avoid an ugly situation for
everyone.  Delivering ultimatums and essentially giving the finger to the
folks that put in all of the work over the past MANY years to get the spec
to the place it is in now is really shocking to see at this point in a
process that has gone on for painfully far too long already.

-Wyllys Ingersoll

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 9:39 AM Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> wrote:

> On 7 Oct 2022, at 13:33, Tom <tom=40flowcrypt.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
> I do praise this sentiment, but, you'll note from the conversation above,
> if the standard is to be "whatever GnuPG wants since they made unilateral
> decision to deploy un-standardized algorithm in the past", then exactly
> what do we have a working group for?
>
>
> I very carefully did *not* say this. What I did say was that users’ needs
> should be the metric by which we judge how to move forward. If the
> consensus is that the only option is a fork, then I want to see it spelled
> out in black and white why this is the best *for users*, and how this will
> not mean the end for OpenPGP as a common standard.
>
> And by “we” I mean *everyone* here. If any implementer is seriously
> proposing to not support the new standard, then I want them to explain why,
> on the same user-driven basis as above. If it is not a serious proposal
> however, then say so now and let’s draw a line under it.
>
> I do wonder what developers of applications that rely on GnuPG (say, other
> than Gpg4win. Projects like Enigmail for Thunderbird used to be when it
> still relied on GnuPG.. I believe there are quire a few others still)
> have to say about the matter.
>
>
> It may also be worth canvassing the opinion of the major OS distributions.
> They rely heavily on the existing installed base on a day to day basis (for
> code verification).
>
> A
>
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> openpgp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
>