Re: [openpgp] v5 in the crypto-refresh draft

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg(_at_)fifthhorseman(_dot_)net> writes:

> Possible Outcomes
> -----------------
>
>  a) WG consensus that all of these are appropriate: keep them as-is
>
>  b) WG consensus that some of them are misfeatures, or otherwise
>     inappropriate for the crypto-refresh: drop the unwanted parts from
>     the specification of v5.
>
>  c) WG consensus that some of them are misfeatures but due to
>     pre-standardization deployment that produced existing artifacts, we
>     can't claw them back: call the new OpenPGP version "v6" and just
>     skip over v5 (like IP!)
>
> Note that for both (b) and (c) it's possible that the new version is
> basically just "v4 but with a SHA256 fingerprint instead of SHA1".  I
> don't think that's necessarily a bad outcome!
My preferred outcome is b, but c may be more practical.

We (Sequoia) have partially implemented proposed changes from
RFC4880bis, but starting with our first stable release we decided not to
emit any artifacts that use new packet versions.

Justus

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp