Re: [openpgp] First remarks on the last I-D

[Jon Callas <[e-mail]>]

> On Jun 8, 2022, at 07:08, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> FWIW, my reading of the charter is that inclusion of gcm,
> if that's what the WG want, would be allowed by our charter.
> It doesn't matter so much what motivates people to want that
> (for those that do), but FIPS compliance isn't at all an
> unusual requirement for some implementers and is a reasonable
> motivation to provide if one is arguing for inclusion of gcm.
> (It's not a "winning" argument for me, but is reasonable.)
> To be clear, our charter does not require us to aim for FIPS
> compliance but I don't think anyone's made that argument.
> 
> IOW, I don't think charter text decides this topic for us.

Stephen,

I agree with the basics of what you're saying, that FIPS compliance is something that people want and often need.

However, GCM mode is not required for FIPS. It is neither necessary nor sufficient. PGP was the very first software-only FIPS 140 module, over twenty years ago. If someone is claiming that they need GCM mode for FIPS, they're mistaken. 

And for what it's worth, I'm also against using GCM mode for storage encryption in particular, and thus in OpenPGP. 

	Jon