IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> Fri, 07 October 2022 13:39 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 09D63C1524AB for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 06:39:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, 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 dcnfOx2JE9wg for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 06:39:04 -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 C43E5C1524A4 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 06:39:03 -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 D06B25F1AA for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:38:59 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com; s=andrewg-com; t=1665149939; bh=DU7Zl8T6DRmVPFO9RddvUbIlhnK7aZX09jxDoZukQnw=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:From; b=rB3aWMeAlVqPZVV2iDZYWx/1w4jBq4PCltlXccQ+OX8uqX7r3AqZZCxAJdKnT/nTZ yHLMIc2FxDw7uHMNYlIHtBQWUUk40UNF5bHQYr3iPEjNpffsE6Nvfvtk2YGYT1nGP/ penRwORfcrUoYaNAvw9hhaep7Y/TX6vys4bybEgCIoUcsvaTozjPp39xiIpQCMcaRw 7DVOQsrdJfKL2GKTUV6zdEr4nEonUAxL9ZJqkayte4Z0sFw+5cHNBRsS+qo2ENi1HU 5yYedt76QRG5BH8upyfbsNlPLg7KYJlEKEkMj1Trimi059kRJNUdVcco/g+Zh0fnfD 0qPDWnu05M0pQ==
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CB2BE3D0-1A67-424C-B002-22A49446E00B"; 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 14:38:51 +0100
References: <086DCEE6-1AB7-4453-9EEA-AFCDFD1715F4@mit.edu> <8414860D-5CE6-407E-A78A-E21A03CDCC52@andrewg.com> <CABpKr=2PMracr8yV6jkfDxVAeOH1uBLS9jPW8ik59jXTvxoATA@mail.gmail.com>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CABpKr=2PMracr8yV6jkfDxVAeOH1uBLS9jPW8ik59jXTvxoATA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <657A76B3-0037-4471-A380-15603BE198FA@andrewg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/q7wl70rBx1I89ThFc-o2zOIPez0>
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 13:39:09 -0000

On 7 Oct 2022, at 13:33, Tom <tom=40flowcrypt.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 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?

I very carefully did *not* say this. What I did say was that users’ needs should be the metric by which we judge how to move forward. If the consensus is that the only option is a fork, then I want to see it spelled out in black and white why this is the best *for users*, and how this will not mean the end for OpenPGP as a common standard.

And by “we” I mean *everyone* here. If any implementer is seriously proposing to not support the new standard, then I want them to explain why, on the same user-driven basis as above. If it is not a serious proposal however, then say so now and let’s draw a line under it.

> 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.

It may also be worth canvassing the opinion of the major OS distributions. They rely heavily on the existing installed base on a day to day basis (for code verification).

A

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