On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:25, simon(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org said:
Yes. I would mention Curve25519 and Ed25519 directly, or keep it
general and say "new elliptic curve key agreement and digital
signatures" instead.
Both ways are okay for me.
Referring to CFRG explicitly is problematic because of timeline and
authority reasons. The CFRG hasn't published anything or made
Right, we would need to wait for endianess peace ;-)
* proper AEAD symmetric crypto
Sure. Is there any proposals on the table?
It has been suggested that we should wait for the outcome of the CAESAR
competition. However, that will be by the end of 2017 which would
required that we plan for 4880bis not ealier than mid 2017 - a year
later than the suggested plan.
We would also go with OCB mode which would be readily available.
* updated fingerprints
No idea.
That is important because we need to be future poof and plan to retire
SHA-1. That also means a v5 packet format and thus this goal alone
would not be sufficent. Better don't put it explictly on the list.
I recall improvements to PGP/MIME was discussed?
That means to update RFC-3156. Although related top OpenPGP, it is a
different thing. I would be in favor of adding this as a second work
item to charter. The required changes are minimal.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp