Re: [openpgp] 4880bis status

Bart Butler <bartbutler@protonmail.com> Sat, 30 March 2019 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <bartbutler@protonmail.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 2AED112001B for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 10:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OT-PU-ik3Jx3 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 10:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.protonmail.ch (mail2.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB746120013 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2019 10:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 17:12:01 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1553965924; bh=1greV5c4NYuUWX8Hq0ZWwD3g7eoRUNlVG+5Ss8wEayw=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From; b=udPJc00fSbUm7T85/4PS2xOLAC1uIesfLqVu39pa+mXKIwn4zG5hBdWqrPVLjhTQZ 9pfcmZ9/oncDcwXVD7XvekAJZ62T0RF3B0Pr3vIx38h+bT5eo4GBmFYxKysn073mBv mFUjlgw0K9/b+Q0KLtwfLTkSejfYWNiuUEG4WDtw=
To: "Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org>
From: Bart Butler <bartbutler@protonmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, "openpgp@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
Reply-To: Bart Butler <bartbutler@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <X4Q2UI6POP95Ui3JqXPGneEgjYUen-rC6PbftibMuCQxqP3l4mLRxLCSGjTbgD7i5z3fAycbLejnNdK5HcQDBYwuOEJ_MD5npunFfhNbJZo=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87pnqchcio.wl-neal@walfield.org>
References: <CAKUk3bvBWoh9jz+T6t5yGs-P-P4cSg8AnSo_md3OFnzqVN-3=A@mail.gmail.com> <0092256D-94EB-4FE5-9560-FEB0B8E3769E@icloud.com> <20190323170723.GC1497@zeromail.org> <87imw9jl2t.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <20190324162058.GA1238@zeromail.org> <87o95yujj0.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87imw5haya.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87d0mdtj10.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87pnqchcio.wl-neal@walfield.org>
Feedback-ID: XShtE-_o2KLy9dSshc6ANALRnvTQ9U24aqXW2ympbGschdpHbU6GYCTUCtfmGhY9HmOyP1Uweyandwh1AVDFrQ==:Ext:ProtonMail
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="---------------------a018d07863f6fcf56640a8a320cb62de"; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/wUWCPsqdgaETeldmapl7GGe5c84>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] 4880bis status
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 17:12:09 -0000

I would agree with Werner that it's essentially done, with minor tweaks being the only thing really remaining.

That said, I'd say limiting the maximum AEAD chunk size would be classified under 'minor tweak' in my book.

-Bart

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 2:50 AM, Neal H. Walfield <neal@walfield.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 

> Werner wrote on gnupg-devel@gnupg.org that he views 4880bis as done,
> and the recent proposals as "severe last minute changes".
> 

> Is there general consensus that 4880bis is done?
> 

> Is further discussion of the changes to 4880bis no longer desired?
> 

> Are new proposals no longer desired?
> 

> Thanks!
> 

> Neal
> 

> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 22:36:43 +0100,
> Werner Koch wrote:
> 

> > Those folks who are trying to get severe
> > last minute changes into a revision of a standard may be better off to
> > start their protocol from scratch.
> 

> openpgp mailing list
> openpgp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp