[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gnupg-devel
Subject:    Re: Standards: IETF WG proposing incompatible despite implementations and objections
From:       Bernhard Reiter <bernhard () intevation ! de>
Date:       2023-04-27 7:21:46
Message-ID: 202304270921.53858.bernhard () intevation ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Hello Kai,

Am Mittwoch 26 April 2023 16:34:23 schrieb Kai Engert via Gnupg-devel:
> On 26.04.23 15:19, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > It seems that the IETF working group
> > plans to publish their proposal of an updated OpenPGP specification
> > a) even with objections present
> > b) and three major implementations
> >   RNP (used by Thunderbird)
> >   GnuPG and
> >   OpenPGP.js (used by Mailvelope)
> > present that have deployed and are using a set of new functions
> > that GnuPG has documented and considered a rough consensus until 2021.
>
> what are the new functions that RNP/GnuPG/OpenPGP.js use that you are
> referring to?

the ones that were implemented and put to use after RFC4880 (from 2007) 
and which seems to have been a rough consensus in the IETF working group
until 2021. 

I think Werner tries to document them and useful additions in
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-koch-openpgp-2015-rfc4880bis-01.txt
(See his email from February to this list.)

Note that I am not an authoritative source, while I do talk to folk from 
g10code on a regular basis, in this matter I try to find out what the 
situation is myself and document it.

> Could you please list the issues that you see regarding these functions
> and the proposed IETF OpenPGP specification?

I wish I could, even the post-2021 working group does not offer an overview
and why they deviate from those major implementations. I think it would be 
most useful if those who propose something else what to what is implemented 
do explain their proposal. Did you ask them?

Nevertheless there have been quite a few points posted on this list in the 
last months. One example was rececked by Bruce Walzer in his previous mail:
 * Too many block encryption modes and EAX still in without rational.

Best Regards
Bernhard

-- 
https://intevation.de/~bernhard   +49 541 33 508 3-3
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel@gnupg.org
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]