IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> Fri, 07 October 2022 11:42 UTC

Return-Path: <andrewg@andrewg.com>
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 5C1B7C1522B7 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 04:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.109
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.109 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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=andrewg.com
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 H8V01atRJVAj for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 04:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fum.andrewg.com (fum.andrewg.com [IPv6:2a01:4f9:c011:23ad::1]) (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 E77DEC14CF11 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 04:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [176.61.115.103]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fum.andrewg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 424515F1AA for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 11:42:05 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com; s=andrewg-com; t=1665142925; bh=dvIe/TeHRvUWRNsRFqgn6aWfPXc7gSINA/ICKAr0W2Y=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=Y5Mkh+EcNIINpV9zjzVHUw/2haFhDOTel4XMnlOpKircsvxKfq5TomrqLwsiPm7Bw 0tvwf97HHAAa4GLneCJZMvb0gAvq0k1fgP5vI8f+9u72zQbX9es309UVQ4YqUEOrIL 8mqd1u2mK7S/P5W0bBUCnY7SF73RQIYufCaGLtNlC9qQKMGSjYlxrSEeEmF+bdNvff MGXKdM1Ek/FK8nInhsFdrqZzjN+o4qlt61MJ6BtG77DGVAKqurqhw51JN9FioI7mSA ZtCmPQjIa4imVs65Uf6XZWVt05hGQk4BreQ6X2iZrUbnDCDasBHKTLZUQqR5VoViwZ 11beqQnFL1Ubw==
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_53CEA17C-18C0-4C84-B928-F9A4441CF7C4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 12:41:57 +0100
References: <086DCEE6-1AB7-4453-9EEA-AFCDFD1715F4@mit.edu>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <086DCEE6-1AB7-4453-9EEA-AFCDFD1715F4@mit.edu>
Message-Id: <8414860D-5CE6-407E-A78A-E21A03CDCC52@andrewg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/g_QfSifY8smse4N_wEYpVSUHc9k>
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 11:42:14 -0000

I am becoming increasingly concerned that this list is flirting with the prospect of a fork in the standard, and that a significant driver of this appears to be a long-running, personalised dispute between particular implementers. If such a fork were to happen, I fear this would effectively kill OpenPGP.

Such an outcome would benefit *nobody*.

Please can we confine our discussions to technical matters? If we absolutely must defer some decisions in order to get agreement now then so be it, and maybe it will allow tempers to cool in the meantime. However I would strongly encourage the group to avoid threats (implied or otherwise) of unilateral action or retribution, and agree that we are all here in order to better serve *our users*, not ourselves.

If we cannot place the end user’s interests at the centre of our decision-making process, we might as well all go home.

A

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