[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:       Andrew Gallagher via Gnupg-devel <gnupg-devel () gnupg ! org>
Date:       2023-04-27 11:41:38
Message-ID: 385808A8-A86A-468D-A5BE-5B1F0D71A65B () andrewg ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On 27 Apr 2023, at 09:04, Bernhard Reiter <bernhard@intevation.de> wrote:
> 
> Just to consider the point Bruce brought up: Why is EAX still in?
> Where can I read up on the argument on this?

AFAICT it's still in mainly because it's optional and nobody has formally proposed to \
remove it - Bruce has brought it up a few times but nearly always in conjunction with \
other points that don't have consensus; there doesn't appear to have been a specific \
proposal on the WG list to only remove EAX but keep everything else as is. It may be \
worth removing EAX if nobody intends to implement it, but if nobody implements EAX \
there's no urgent need to remove it either.

> > The single one big argument is that of compatibility. And it's a really
> > strong argument. So strong in fact, that some folks worry that going
> > ahead with the new spec despite it may spell the death of OpenPGP.
> > And indeed - it just might.
> 
> Both true, but it is not necessarily a "big" argument in my view.
> Compatibility issues can often be addressed in parts or little steps. Or with
> a plan over time. The question is: where do we want to head?

The competing proposals are not contradictory; the version bump has avoided that. It \
is possible for individual implementations to support both "v5" and "v6", even if \
only partially (e.g. read-only support for the "wrong" format). This would seem to me \
to be the most productive compromise path forward at this point, however the WG \
cannot officially suggest such a thing. :-)

> What you are saying is that the working group wants to oppose Werner for
> showing that they have the power and need to be taken seriously.

This is not fair. Most people on the WG have come around to the current position with \
extreme reluctance. If there were some way to reconcile the competing proposals even \
at this late stage, there would be great rejoicing.

A


["signature.asc" (signature.asc)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=e3e9
-----END 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]