Re: [openpgp] lack of agenda items...

[Vincent Breitmoser <[e-mail]>]

Hey list,

On 02.11.22 18:11, Daniel Huigens wrote:
>> *where feasible*, reduce potential conflicts with Werner's draft
> I know that that message asks for specific text, and I'd be willing to
> propose some, but I'm not entirely sure what direction to go in.
>
> For example, do we want to bump keys and signatures to v6? That would be
> a crude but simple way to ensure interoperability. More fine-grained
> changes to ensure that crypto-refresh-v5 keys and signatures inter-
> operate with draft-koch-v5 keys and signatures would take a lot more
> work, which I'd prefer to only do if the WG decides that that's the
> best way to go.

In a related bit of news, GnuPG has as of 2022-10-31 removed its 
"--rfc4880bis"
compatibility mode, and adopted it (i.e. draft-koch-v5) as default behavior.

https://dev.gnupg.org/rG4583f4fe2e11b3dd070066628c3f16776cc74f72

Take this with a grain of salt: I'm not 100% sure I read the commit 
right (if that's
the case please someone correct me!), and of course the underlying 
intent isn't
fully clear from a possibly intermediate commit. I asked for 
clarification directly
on the commit, to be sure.

Cheers

  - V