Nikos Mavroyanopoulos <nmav@gnutls.org> Fri, 12 July 2002 18:01 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06279 for <openpgp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:01:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g6CHo7c28250 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crystal.i-net.gr (foobar@afa4pc93.aua.gr []) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g6CHo4w28241 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nmav by crystal.i-net.gr with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 17T4V3-0003ct-00 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:46:37 +0300
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:26:11 +0300
From: Nikos Mavroyanopoulos <nmav@gnutls.org>
To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org, ietf-tls@lists.certicom.com
Subject: draft-ietf-tls-openpgp-keys
Message-ID: <20020712102611.GA1612@gnutls.org>
Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org, ietf-tls@lists.certicom.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-PGP-KeyID: B15C37D1
X-Request-PGP: finger:nmav@members.hellug.gr
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>

 Currently we have two internet drafts that both describe a way to
use TLS with openpgp keys. The differences between them seem to be
artistic[0], and can be concluded to whether the extension mechanism
should be used, or new ciphersuites should be defined.

Now both of them have a working implementation, and this shows that
there is indeed interest in TLS with openpgp keys.

So I'd like to ask the TLS WG, if there are any objections against TLS with 
openpgp keys? Is there any interest to move any of these drafts to RFC

If we decide that this functionality is needed and requested, we can proceed 
and choose which one to move. But I believe that this should be done later,
in a technical discussion.

Since the reason of not moving any of these drafts to RFC status was the 
lack of support, if you support any of these drafts, please express your 
support in the ietf-tls mailing list.

PS. the drafts can be found at:

[0]. I have a strong objection against the keyID as used in the 
draft-ietf-tls-openpgp-02.txt, but this is rather technical and can
be discussed afterwards.

Nikos Mavroyanopoulos