[openpgp] Re: Outstanding questions re Key Replacement draft
Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.openpgp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed 2025-02-12 12:43:48 +0000, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
> The interim meeting did not reach a consensus on the issue of optional fallback encryption. To summarise, the basic options presented were:
>
> 0. Fallback is always possible (no change to current draft)
> 1. Fallback to each particular original is possible IFF a flag is set in the target record (granular control, wire format change)
> 2. Fallback to all originals is possible if a flag is set in the class octet (all or nothing, no wire format change)
with no formal hats on, but as an implementer and a consumer of the
spec:
I also prefer option 0. Each layer of flags/etc is a layer to
potentially get wrong (or at least for each implementer to get subtly
different from one another, which is just as bad). And they cause a
generating application to punt to the user some additional
very-hard-to-answer questions, which also isn't great. And, this
particular semantic might itself at least partially duplicate semantics
we already have.
Keep it simple.
--dkg
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 227 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRjrBGOWy5dZsiKhad4C4VO2cK0lgUCZ9UTdwAKCRB4C4VO2cK0 lmhDAQDYiucsbd5eLTgMHxe1SjZj7tNi7kAQxwOCM9GODyKbzgEA7EYXoMWTRQMw PFB0ZMtDNv1URMDlU3dmUMnwQoI0uAA= =V6f/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----