Specification for Kyber in GnuPG

[Jacob Bachmeyer]

Kai Engert via Gnupg-devel wrote:
> [...]
>
> I recently saw a political cartoon, which reminded me of the term 
> "Divide and Conquer".
>
> I don't know if there is any actor who's actively playing that 
> political game and is sowing discord, in order to weaking the OpenPGP 
> protocol. But if someone is, we shouldn't let them win.

Observing the recent discussion on these mailing lists, and assuming 
that all comments (especially those about the way OpenPGP has previously 
handled parameterized algorithms) are accurate and truthful, it appears 
to me that the culpable parties are probably *not* on this mailing 
list.  In other words, OpenPGP algorithm IDs should refer to algorithm 
types (RSA, DSA, EC-RSA, McEliece, Kyber, etc.) with details (key 
length, curve parameters, etc.) included in type-specific fields in the 
key packets.  The other side of this debate is attempting to treat 
OpenPGP algorithm IDs like TLS ciphersuite IDs, which attach all of the 
details to each codepoint.

If someone is sowing discord, I presently believe that it is not the GPG 
maintainers.  If someone is trying to weaken the OpenPGP protocol, I 
believe it to be the parties pushing for less flexibility, where OpenPGP 
has historically allowed wide flexibility.


-- Jacob