IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Aron Wussler <aron@wussler.it> Tue, 04 October 2022 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <aron@wussler.it>
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 71F96C1522CF for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=wussler.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qa0z2cjiW2XQ for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-4018.proton.ch (mail-4018.proton.ch [185.70.40.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80561C1524A8 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 17:03:06 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wussler.it; s=protonmail3; t=1664902992; x=1665162192; bh=cTyheuNuAeBloAbSHgsvLNZrFqM8vZNfVaLK5yaEfn8=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=EXCkWEdaqHGSnrCeDP81KkCmcsRmKnIWhpw6s9zHiLV1brdfrfpZzX2QFjLpWsn8Y uKlTuvR3JqND+cvf5nsmOaD+uM3TbdkCqQnp3GETdgwwjrBbe0A96RZeEL6X2X4/NS 70K+h3GjJ1Y7NQFops7Fdf5onL1o3DKhu4m65tlXn/M4jfYr9eoGDpe6X2tFEz4MD9 d5jo8VGu4v9rDE2UHaIpRC2zuE6SDk1QxD46J7FEDmKIspANEnBXrapT0/KfArRq9e LhzVdS+gVOhye8ubHA0JGKkxUpDhwUF3WV2hAld0tZjZbK1APGY9hS3k9KxowkvEa0 KcUFFBp8Y//Ng==
To: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>, "tom@flowcrypt.com" <tom@flowcrypt.com>
From: Aron Wussler <aron@wussler.it>
Cc: "openpgp\\@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <sROtYj2LThMitPJ-iNE57m4oVJZo9hIsgUVAC8jVNRbwcyrN1gx3s7GLlvgXw_Vr8Nl9gDcdi3GtpZx4fhBSkjh4P2xKbvTdrhQtOqSxDHA=@wussler.it>
In-Reply-To: <87fsg3bkp7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
References: <b8ddeb1e-fdbb-edab-3693-722c9e14f3d8@cs.tcd.ie> <5f07c5cf-d956-30fc-394d-01ef3237d80a@cs.tcd.ie> <CABpKr=0xyqCUuuRAYDCWTdhNt-OLnTzEFu+HYFGXdXC=QAXO+g@mail.gmail.com> <f-YYoR1skk57zgBYcN2M5-D8_VY5Vj64s0PxaGu_nFTMEdYdmF55jMd-2MMVYdrSfYUfuc1R9NACAXwGXMokykUb1TZw_uUJjTzh-_w25HQ=@wussler.it> <87fsg3bkp7.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
Feedback-ID: 10883271:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; boundary="------abfdae7db77bf6e8b2dc5de17f198b550c58970a11f0d08460270a23715c197c"; charset="utf-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/dpf0kd52ImksCBNI3MOVjcdIynQ>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] a new draft overlapping the WG draft
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 17:03:26 -0000

Hi Werner,

> more or less privately (DT) done changes
The process in issuing the new draft seemed pretty clear to me. I do not belong to the DT and yet was able to easily follow it. I also proposed a couple of small fixes and overall I appreciated the transparency.

Furthermore, the crypto refresh is specifically based on the old draft. And this is why I call it old.
It's not throwing away 5 years of work - rather the opposite. It took the points of the old draft and one by one discussed them to see if there was consensus.

On the other hand, going to publish the "currently implemented" draft is IMO a toxic behaviour to the community. This is why we have drafts in the first place. Once consensus is achieved we all accept that there are some parts we don't like, and implement something that hopefully interoperates. 


Then proposing
> For interoperability between specifications, I would suggest that crypto-refresh makes the use of the marker packet with a content different from "PGP" mandatory.
sounds to me also as a very selfish idea, maybe GPG should then start using "GPG" instead.

I'm also very interested in the answer to Tom's question:
> does this mean that your stance is that GnuPG will remain exactly as-is regardless of what the new OpenPGP spec says, and if the new OpenPGP spec is at a conflict with GnuPG, you are content with GnuPG becoming a non-compliant implementation?

Cheers,
Aron


--
Aron Wussler
Sent with ProtonMail, OpenPGP key 0x7E6761563EFE3930



------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, October 4th, 2022 at 18:46, Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> wrote:


> On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 16:04, Aron Wussler said:
> 

> > 1. disrupt years of work by throwing in an old draft, instead of proposing
> > constructive changes or comments.
> 

> 

> For the records: That "old" draft consists of five years public work
> (2015 to 2020) compared to less than a year of more or less privately
> (DT) done changes to just this draft.
> 

> 

> Shalom-Salam,
> 

> Werner
> 

> 

> --
> The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that
> refuse military service. - A. Einstein
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> openpgp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status