Notes from the first OpenPGP Summit

[Robert J. Hansen]

> Every environment is free to implement its own pinentry, and we've never
> discouraged that (indeed, gnupg upstream ships several pinentry
> variants).  If a pinentry variant chooses to implement its own
> passphrase cache, that is up to that pinentry variant, no?

I'm not objecting to the idea of GKD providing its own pinentry:
creating a gkd-pinentry sounds like a good idea.

I'm objecting to what I read (and possibly misread) as placing GKD hooks
into the *GnuPG-distributed* pinentry.

I would suggest that in the future we talk about "pinentry" only for
GnuPG's pinentry, and "foo-pinentry" to denote a pinentry provided by
foo, so as to prevent future misunderstandings.  :)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3744 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20150428/be636973/attachment-0001.bin>