Standards and PGP wraper

Michael Roth mroth at
Fri Nov 6 18:17:43 CET 1998


after some days of silence some thoughts about standards and so on:
Just while I read the Halloween Document, now I feel that we should not
include patented algorithm and proprietary packet formats.
In the time before the last weekend I think that RSA and IDEA is important
for GnuPG. But now I really think that patented algorithm or
proprietary extensions are a very dangerous point of failure. So I dropped
my plans to create a "extended" gnupg version wich is 100% compatible with  
pgp2.6. I discarded all my plans on this subject. :-)

IMHO the answer of the question "prefer a type 16 subkey for encryption
because pgp cannot handle type 20?" from the TODO file in gnupg should be:
"type 20 should be default, but provide a way for creating pgp compatible
packets and keys because pgp is really widly spread." 
I think this way is the right one.

Two weeks ago I decided to write a pgp wrapper for gnupg. Werner told me
that an often reported problem is to substitute pgp with gnupg in
existing application because of the incompatible command line syntax.
However, I don't have started to write the wrapper yet... :-(
But I would like to know your opinions about the most important
features/functions of a wrapper. For example I think we don't need
key management in the wrapper!?

Please send your suggestions and wishes :-)


                    Michael Roth

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list