potential IETF WG incompatibility with GnuPG 2.3

[Andrew Gallagher]

Hi, Bernhard.

On 13 Dec 2022, at 08:35, Bernhard Reiter <bernhard at intevation.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Vincent,
> 
>> Given that this commit was merged roughly two weeks after the
>> aforementioned decision, should this be
>> understood that GnuPG intends to focus on its own packet format instead
>> of standardized OpenPGP?
> 
> the working group has not yet come up with a needed refresh for many years.
> It has to be seen if whatever the IETF workgroup comes up with
> is a good update to RFC4880. (At least this is my personal view on this, I am
> not really involved in GnuPG's nor in the working group's work in this area.)

“It remains to be seen” is the crucial phrase there. Making 4880-bis the default behaviour in master appears to be prejudging the outcome of the standardisation process, with potentially damaging consequences for the wider ecosystem. 4880-bis differs in some crucial places, making it incompatible with the current WG draft.

If GnuPG chose 4880-bis instead of the new RFC (whatever it may be), then other implementations would have to choose whether to support 4880-bis as an extra compatibility mode, break compatibility with GnuPG going forward, or find themselves bounced into abandoning the RFC process. None of those outcomes would be desirable.

Several people have asked for clarification on a number of occasions but none appears to be forthcoming. Vincent’s question is valid, and we should be careful not to derail this thread with other arguments.

A

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/attachments/20221213/e27d3723/attachment.sig>