potential IETF WG incompatibility with GnuPG 2.3

[Werner Koch]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 11:38, Vincent Breitmoser said:

> As any WG work, this is a public process: There has been a lot of

Which is not entirely true.  The crypto-refresh folks worked in a closed
design team and presented their results to the WG.  Comments from WG
members which challenged the outcome were mostly rejected or ignored.

For the records:

I had been part of the design team.  Actually Stephen called me once to
setup this DT so to solve the blocks we mainly had due to some bike
shedding.  It took a bit longer then expected to set it up but we were
then able to solve the blocking issues in a way which all participants
could agreed on - including me (as GnuPG author and assigned editor of
the WG).  Due to time constrains I quiet the DT which had only editorial
tasks open.  Unfortunately they the started to revamp the entire
specification and presented that as the new crypto-refresh.

> In particular for Werner's side I'll admit I didn't really understand
> what's going on.

I described this too often to repeat it again.  But anyway in short: The
OpenPGP WG turned into design-by-commitee mode.  Which is yet another
tombstone for the IETF.



Shalom-Salam,

   Werner


-- 
The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that
refuse military service.             - A. Einstein
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/attachments/20221220/a30d6e89/attachment.sig>