Hi group,
While it’s almost the same and (mostly) duplicates contents of the previous
messages, it adds links to some closed issues in GnuPG bug tracker.
Those seems to be closed absolutely logically, since were pointing to
unsupported configurations/non-release GPG versions.
And I don’t think we should mix together development of some project(s) with
work on internet draft.
Best regards,
Nickolay Olshevsky
o(_dot_)nickolay(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
....
- We created an interoperability test suite [0]. This test suite
has been successful in identifying problems in many OpenPGP
implementations. We reported the problems that we found in the
different implementations, and the response was almost universally
positive. The exception was the GnuPG project, where Werner
outright dismissed any findings ([1], [2]). Now, Werner is free
to dismiss contributions in his personal project, but this alone
should raise some red flags.
0: https://tests.sequoia-pgp.org/
1: https://dev.gnupg.org/T4725
2: https://dev.gnupg.org/T4727
However, as editor of the RFC, he cannot treat contributors to OpenPGP
as he treats potential contributors to GnuPG, e.g., closing bug
reports with the reason "spite" [3]. The recent addition of the "key
block" subpacket to RFC4880bis which he committed on the same day as
the implementation in GnuPG suggests that Werner thinks that he has
the authority to change the standard like he changes GnuPG. Changing
the standard should be a group effort, which we tried to engage in,
but were blocked by Werner.
3: https://dev.gnupg.org/T4904
....
For the Sequoia-PGP team,
Justus
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp