Re: [openpgp] Choices for AEAD modes

[Werner Koch <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 11:27, Justus Winter said:

> If you had all that consensus in the WG back then, maybe you should
> have actually produced a revision to RFC4880?

Rfc4880bis-10 and earlier versions [1]

> draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-06 represents a broad consensus among
> the community: members of most major OpenPGP implementations came
> together and worked on the text in the design team.  Represented were
> GnuPG, RNP, GopenPGP, OpenPGP.js, and Sequoia.

No, there was no consensus from GnuPG and RNP in the design team for any
of the changes after we had finalized the AEAD chunk size thingy.

> If you have concrete concerns, then by all means, do speak up.  However,
> "this is different from what I've been doing" isn't a valid concern.

I have not said this. I stated that the AEAD scheme has been deployed a
long time now, we have done extensive interop testing and that things
are in real world use.  This is the way the OpenPGP WG has been working
since its beginnings in the 25 years ago.  And we are pretty successful
in taking interoperability serious as long as anyhow possible.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner




[1] We had this all ready when you and your friends changed employer
    from g10 Code to pEp in Summer 2017.  And then immediately started
    to request changes to a nearly finalized I-D which we had discussed
    in our weekly company meetings often enough.  It seems the requested
    changes were not just for on technical grounds but for "competative"
    reasons.

-- 
The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that
refuse military service.             - A. Einstein