key length/size RSA discussion/recommendations in the wiki

Robert J. Hansen rjh at
Fri Oct 31 18:29:21 CET 2014

> yes, I think that the recurring debate demands that the arguments
> are made visible so they can be tested by readers.

The FAQ is discussed in public and changes are submitted to the
community for comment and review before I make any changes.  So far, no
one on the list has raised a serious objection to the content -- some
have said, "I don't agree but I'm in the minority," but no one has said,
"I don't think the community is behind this."

> You can see in the referred Debian issue tracker, that Werner has to repeat 
> his arguments over and over again, there is not good place to refer to the 
> chain of arguments.

The people who are most up in arms over this aren't going to be
convinced by a chain of arguments.  Holy wars are driven by articles of
faith ("vi is superior to emacs!"), not by reason. [*]

I agree that the FAQ is a bad place to present a chain of arguments and
the wiki is the natural spot for it.  My concern is that the FAQ and the
wiki need to be kept in sync somehow, and I'm not going to be watching
the wiki constantly to make sure we're giving consistent advice.

My other concern is the false air of authority that wikis tend to get.
When anyone can edit, wikis periodically wind up saying ... anything.
If people are looking for a curated line of reasoning from
cryptographers and/or cryptographic engineers, that may not be a good
candidate for a wiki.

All this said, though: how can I help?

[*] emacs is *so* superior to vi, incidentally.  I don't know how any
right-thinking person could think otherwise.  Heathens.  They probably
eat pork, too.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20141031/52e2b26f/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list