Werner Koch
Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:01:27 +0200

On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, L. Sassaman wrote:

> I was not judging the particular case of not including IDEA and RSA. In
It is perfectly okay not to include those algorithms. The IETF prefers unpatened algorithms if it can be done at all and one of the reasons why we have this whole OpenPGP think, is that it now allows free usage of a protocol.
> fact, the modules almost make up for it (the RSA module doesn't permit key
> generation, I don't believe). But I was just pointing out that SHOULD
And with a good reason. 2 years back most folks agredd on that RSA is a bad thing. I remember that Phil called my on the phone to make sure that GnuPG will not switch to RSA! Because it sometimes makes sense to create RSA keys, GnuPG will have this feature on Sep 20th.
> If the WG assigned packet 17 to something else, then there would be a
> problem. As it is now, Packet 17 is effectively assigned to the
> Photo-ID; it just isn't official. I hope the WG makes it so, as the
That is the reason why there are these experimental/private packet numbers. These whole compatibilty story to PGP remembers me a bit of the strategy other (big) verndors are driving. Take a standard, add some nice little gadget which is not covered by the standard and claim that you use the new Standard. Microsoft did this recently with Kerberos. BTW, does PGP 6,7 or whatever now create v4 signature packets or does GnuPG still need the --force-v3-sigs option? Werner p.s. This discussion should be done on the OpenPGP ML. -- Werner Koch OpenPGP key 621CC013 OpenIT GmbH tel +49 211 239577-0 Birkenstr. 12 email D-40233 Duesseldorf