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

[Tom <[e-mail]>]

Werner,

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,
Tom

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 4:34 PM Werner Koch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue,  4 Oct 2022 15:54, Tom said:
>
> > Is there no middle ground? Something that would allow GnuPG a smooth
> > transition to a new spec while taking web browser implementations into
> > account?
>
> ... and taking embedded devices into account.
>
> The former is easy: just convince the browser vendors to implement
> modern cryptoo.  It is an easy task technically.  (While at it, ask them
> why 8 years after a pathc has been provided, Brainpool curves are still
> not implemented and thus inbiting the use of qualified signature in
> Europe).
>
> For the latter, some of the new features (IIRC, S2K requirements) seem
> to be very problematic.
>
> > GnuPG? Presumably it would be i) added effort to maintain two AEAD
>
> Won't happen for complexity reasons and to avoid algorithm
> proliferation.
>
> > of this translates to difficult work. Any other impact? Assuming all of
> > this work is done, what would this mean for GnuPG end users?
>
> I guess some web mailers won't be interoperable with regular mail.
>
> For interoperability between specifications, I would suggest that
> crypto-refresh makes the use of the marker packet with a content
> different from "PGP" mandatory.
>
>
> Salam-Shalom,
>
>    Werner
>
> --
> The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that
> refuse military service.             - A. Einstein
>


-- 
Tom at FlowCrypt