Re: Question on Integrity of Sequoia-PGP Developers

On 9/12/25 14:20, Matt Borja via Gnupg-devel wrote:
> The best course of action in the better interest of the industry, 
> given the direction the official IETF standards process which is what 
> the industry will inevitably follow, would be for the LibrePGP Message 
> Format branch to merge back onto main at some point, either now or in 
> the future; sooner rather than later in the interest of resolving 
> those merge conflicts, as difficult as that may be. And then 
> continuing forward with the effort collaboratively.
>
> The information provided in the comp I would hope would be a great 
> starting point for this effort.
>
> But if that can’t be done, then there’s really no point to further 
> discussion on this issue. Because what we’re saying then is that the 
> only place where all this talk and effort will actually make a 
> difference in resolving this split, is simply out of the question. And 
> RFC 9580 will continue on as-is into the future as the industry 
> standard ratified by IETF until some similar disruptive event in the 
> future transpires; rinse and repeat.

Do I correctly gather that LibrePGP defines v5 and RFC9580 defines v6?  
If so, where is the problem?  What prevents both of those from 
co-existing and implementations eventually supporting both?


-- Jacob



_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel