On Fri 2019-10-18 09:00:42 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Saying that you have technical objections which you will not reveal is
incredibly rude. Either state your objections so they can be responded to
or don't state them at all.
Can we tone it down a bit? Bjarni's objections seem explicitly stated
to me: he's objecting on the grounds of simplicity. The draft he points
to (which i'm a co-author on) provides material that people can use
today, without any additional effort.
Phil's proposal offers a wider feature set, it's true, but requires more
development of consensus about how to design the key derivation, and
also requires more work on the side of implementers.
Standards develoment can support both of these approaches, there's no
reason to queue one behind the other.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp