Re: [openpgp] Weird OIDs in the 4880bis draft

[Heiko Schäfer <[e-mail]>]

Hey all,

On 2/20/23 20:17, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 20/02/2023 19:01, Daniel Huigens wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After discussing with Justus, dkg and Stephen, I've added the Curve25519
>> OIDs back into [!242], but marked as legacy (as Justus did in !240).
>> That way, they can still be referenced easily, but we still make it
>> clear that the new algorithm IDs are preferable. This doesn't simplify
>> the spec as much as before, but it's also a less radical change, and it
>> will still simplify greenfield implementations a lot. In a way, I think
>> it's a good compromise between the two MRs. And I believe that it now
>> represents the option we'd both be most happy with 😄
>
> Ok, so given the proponents are now happy with this merge
> request can other people please take a look and express an
> opinion on the list as to whether we should make these
> changes now.
>
> Please do so by the end of Wednesday if you can.

I've just given !242 a close read (to the extent of my limited 
understanding).
I like and support the changes.

Thanks for everyone's tireless and diligent work, I look forward to the 
hopefully imminent finalization of this standardization effort!
Heiko


PS: As an aside: I think it's good and important that with this change, 
v6 continues to support algorithms like NIST and Brainpool in a 
non-disruptive way (even if I sympathize with Daniel H.'s perspective 
that the world would be nicer if this weren't needed).