On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
<dkg(_at_)fifthhorseman(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On Wed 2015-06-03 20:36:35 -0400, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:
I am not sure I'm going to be in Prague, although if the group wants
to meet, that would prod me a bit more. What do we think, do we want
a meeting in Prague, or do we want to start on the list?
Well, we're already started on the list. :)
i think offering a meeting in Prague sounds reasonable if enough people
will be present and interested, and if there are specific agenda items
we want to have in-person discussion on. No hard decisions would be
made in-person -- it would be information-gathering (and hopefully
consensus-building), with the results sent back to the mailing list for
review.
Are there other folks on the list who plan to be in Prague who would
like to meet?
Three things i think would be useful for in-person discussion, if we
have concrete proposals to review would be:
* ECDH for 25519
* signalling mechanisms for the use of a revised AEAD symmetric cipher
* Fingerprint content and representations
Do people have any proposed agenda items?
I would like to discuss my UDF fingerprint draft.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-udf-00
Most of the design follows the discussion on the list. The question that
people might want to discuss is whether to put an OpenPGP specific
identifier in the fingerprint value or if it is sufficient to put this in
the data that is fingerprinted.
So far we have two slots used out of 256 possible version identifiers (128
before we might have to think about strategies to make more version ids.)
So assigning 2 slots for general purpose fingerprints and two for OpenPGP
is not a big issue as far as registry space goes. I would much prefer to
have fingerprints be a general building block that every app uses in the
same way though.
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp