Fwd: Re: Specification for Kyber in GnuPG

[Steffen Nurpmeso]

Unfortunately i got

  <gnupg-devel at gnupg.org>: host ellsberg.gnupg.com[176.9.119.14] said: 550 [SPF]
      217.144.132.164 is not allowed to send mail from sdaoden.eu. (in reply to
      MAIL FROM command)

which seems a bit square given that i DKIM sign my messages now,
and the SPF cannot have anything else but ~all because i speak to
people behind forwarders which do not use SRS rewriting, and what
is a SPF record of ~all worth, thus i had thrown it away.
(Worked for almost two months without problems.)

--- Forwarded from Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen at sdaoden.eu> ---
Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 02:13:53 +0200
Author: Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen at sdaoden.eu>
From: Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen at sdaoden.eu>
To: Kai Engert via Gnupg-devel <gnupg-devel at gnupg.org>
Subject: Re: Specification for Kyber in GnuPG
Message-ID: <20240508001353.Kz1gyZ6F at steffen%sdaoden.eu>
Mail-Followup-To: Kai Engert via Gnupg-devel <gnupg-devel at gnupg.org>
OpenPGP: id=EE19E1C1F2F7054F8D3954D8308964B51883A0DD; url=https://ftp.sdaoden.eu/steffen.asc; preference=signencrypt

Kai Engert via Gnupg-devel wrote in
 <2f3ac45e-97c2-46a7-8d37-bc7eac45592a at kuix.de>:
 |On 02.05.24 08:42, Werner Koch via Gnupg-devel wrote:
 |> Many thanks to Stavros Kousidis, Falko Strenzke, and Aron Wussler for
 |> their draft on adding PQC to OpenPGP.  The algorithms used by LibgrePGP
 |> are the same except for the fixed info.  I took the freedom to remove
 |> the rationale parts which are not helpful for an implementer and was
 |> thus able to make the description more concise.
 |
 |Hi Werner,
 |
 |is my understanding correct, LibrePGP reuses most of the PQC 
 |specification from draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc, and your only concerns are 
 |about the algorithm IDs and the fixed info?
 |
 |If that's correct, I think it's exciting that your views are so close to 
 |each other!
 |
 |I wonder if the authors of draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc might be willing to 
 |accept these changes, for the sake of a common specification.
 |
 |Would you be open to a shared specification for the PQC subkey format?
 |
 |Furthermore, as I understand it, the v5 key format and the v6 key format 
 |are very close to each other (thanks a lot to Andrew Gallagher for 
 |enlightening me about this detail).
 |
 |I wonder if we could find a way to introduce the specification of a v5 
 |format subkey (only) into an IETF specification, to allow the 
 |draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc specification to use it.
 |
 |Actually, I think it would be better if there was a common 
 |specification, agreed to by both the LibrePGP and IETF groups. How could 
 |such a common specification be defined? Do you have ideas or suggestions?
 |
 |I'm dreaming here, but I think it would be great to see a base 

I wholeheartly agree and would think that nearby a hundred percent
of all persons using OpenPGP of whatever kind do, too.  (And would
be surprised if not.)

 |specification, that extracts the common denominator of draft-librepgp 
 |and crypto-refresh, and which could be extended to contain the v5 subkey 
 |format. Then, draft-librepgp (and ideally crypto-refresh) could 
 |potentially be rewritten to be incremental specifications on top of the 
 |common denominator spec.
 --End of <2f3ac45e-97c2-46a7-8d37-bc7eac45592a at kuix.de>
...
 -- End forward <20240508001353.Kz1gyZ6F at steffen%sdaoden.eu>

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)