Standards: IETF WG proposing incompatible despite implementations and objections

[Andrew Gallagher]

On 27 Apr 2023, at 09:04, Bernhard Reiter <bernhard at intevation.de> wrote:
> 
> Just to consider the point Bruce brought up: Why is EAX still in?
> Where can I read up on the argument on this?

AFAICT it’s still in mainly because it’s optional and nobody has formally proposed to remove it - Bruce has brought it up a few times but nearly always in conjunction with other points that don’t have consensus; there doesn’t appear to have been a specific proposal on the WG list to only remove EAX but keep everything else as is. It may be worth removing EAX if nobody intends to implement it, but if nobody implements EAX there’s no urgent need to remove it either.

>> The single one big argument is that of compatibility. And it's a really
>> strong argument. So strong in fact, that some folks worry that going
>> ahead with the new spec despite it may spell the death of OpenPGP.
>> And indeed - it just might.
> 
> Both true, but it is not necessarily a "big" argument in my view.
> Compatibility issues can often be addressed in parts or little steps. Or with
> a plan over time. The question is: where do we want to head?

The competing proposals are not contradictory; the version bump has avoided that. It is possible for individual implementations to support both “v5” and “v6", even if only partially (e.g. read-only support for the “wrong” format). This would seem to me to be the most productive compromise path forward at this point, however the WG cannot officially suggest such a thing. :-)

> What you are saying is that the working group wants to oppose Werner for
> showing that they have the power and need to be taken seriously.

This is not fair. Most people on the WG have come around to the current position with extreme reluctance. If there were some way to reconcile the competing proposals even at this late stage, there would be great rejoicing.

A

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/attachments/20230427/491a576b/attachment-0001.sig>