potential IETF WG incompatibility with GnuPG 2.3

[Bernhard Reiter]

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.)

In previous IETF OpenPGP standardisation processes, it seems that well working 
practice was considered to a large extend, it seems natural up to a point to 
try and see if new things are needed and useful.

(Same as you did when you have decided to made keys.openpgp.org incompatible 
to the existing OpenPGP standard, by not adding the necessary signature, see 
https://dev.gnupg.org/T4393 and blame it as defect on your page
https://keys.openpgp.org/about/faq)

I am referring to this, because I do not like the insinuation of your email
that GnuPG would be aiming to be incompatible while you and other members of 
the working group did so themselves to a larger extend in the past.
I do not think that this kind of "questioning" from your email is helpful for 
a constructive way forward.

Regards
Bernhard

-- 
https://intevation.de/~bernhard   +49 541 33 508 3-3
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/attachments/20221213/6434f00c/attachment.sig>