potential IETF WG incompatibility with GnuPG 2.3

[Andrew Gallagher]

On 15 Dec 2022, at 08:44, Bernhard Reiter <bernhard at intevation.de> wrote:
> 
> In recent years the field has gotten more difficult with some exchanges
> that I did not find fair. This is why I've jumped on this question, I am not 
> sure that I, if I was Werner, would put in the time to answer it. Partly 
> because it is placed and framed in a way that does not seem to seek 
> understanding and cooperation, but to make GnuPG look bad. 
> Why would someone answer that?

I agree, the tone of some exchanges recently has been less than ideal. I’m involved in the WG mainly to speak up for the keyservers, and to offer native-English-speaking proofreading whenever I have the time. I’m also agnostic on many of the technical arguments leading up to this particular incident. I’m *not* agnostic on the need for a unified spec, or the need to get crypto-refresh resolved so we can finalise sig attestations (which are vital for the survival of the keyservers but are currently out of scope in the WG). If all the implementors are still invested in the standardisation process, then let’s find a way to work through whatever disagreements remain. Otherwise, let’s (reluctantly) accept that and manage the consequences. But we should know which of these cases applies. At the moment there is a lot of wild speculation, accusations of bad faith, and unprofessional language going around which is not helping.

>> Several people have asked for clarification on a number of occasions but
>> none appears to be forthcoming. 
> 
> (BTW if those exchanges are publically available, can you point me to them?)

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/q7wl70rBx1I89ThFc-o2zOIPez0/

A
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/attachments/20221215/4b1fe366/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: favicon.ico
Type: image/vnd.microsoft.icon
Size: 3638 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/attachments/20221215/4b1fe366/attachment-0001.ico>