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

Andrew,

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? Why have a standard? We could just all
work backwards from GnuPG implementation. GnuPG codebase would be the spec..

I do hope there would be a better way out. Currently, one side goes "here's
what you must do because I did it" and the other side goes "you don't get
to make unilateral decisions, but you're welcome to be involved in group
discussions", and here we are.

I do suppose that proceeding with crypto-refresh without GnuPG blessing is
the *riskier appearing* option. On the other hand, making steps backwards
while breaking community spirit for the selfish benefit one community
member seems like an actual suicide OpenPGP community-wise. While appearing
to be the safer bet, it may be the riskier option long term, IMO. Nothing
will ever *really* improve.

What Neal proposed mitigates some of these issues though, and makes the
functionality non-conflicting, at least, which is desirable, given lack of
other decent options.

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. Maybe they already voiced their opinions above and
I missed them, would be good to hear from them explicitly.

Cheers,
Tom

On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 11:42 AM Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> openpgp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
>

-- 
Tom at FlowCrypt