On Wed 2021-04-28 23:58:48 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
Additionally, the phrase "A compliant application MUST only use
iterated and salted S2K"... is also mostly fine, but I had already
covered a proposal for that one in the previous
https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/42
I would need to hear from more people about this change to see if
there is consensus for this.
speaking with no roles others than an individual:
This part was proposed in February on a different thread. I am moving
your comment there and replying in that one:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/ml5gzuQtSY6ANBejs8Xk66x_abQ
I've merged in this change in a seperate commit, please review as part
of the next draft update. (commit 464ac8232f9)
I think the commit you're talking about is now public as
1edfd5d45a49a5a15d08eff9fff7d5c482acb6da, 'update text on "Simple S2K
and Salted S2K specifiers" as per WG discussion'.
minor clarification: among a few other changes, it adds this line:
+Implementations SHOULD NOT use these methods on encryption of both keys and
messages.
I think this "both" should be "either" -- otherwise, the guidance sounds
like it applies only to some combination encryption (which isn't
possible iirc). otherwise, it looks good to me.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp