[openpgp] Re: proposal of draft-ehlen-openpgp-nist-bp-comp f or adoption by WG

Andrew Gallagher <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.openpgp
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi, all.

I notice that Section 3.1.1 of draft-ehlen-openpgp-nist-bp-comp says:

> The algorithms in this draft are not assigned a codepoint in the current state of the draft since there are not enough private/experimental code points available to cover all newly introduced public-key algorithm identifiers.

This shortage of private/experimental code points was raised a good while ago, before this draft was split from the main PQC draft. ISTR at the time a few people suggested expanding the p/e range, for example to 96..111 == 0x60..0x6f. (This was the main reason I included such an increase in the p/e ranges in draft-gallagher-openpgp-grease.)

Does the WG think a larger p/e range would be useful?

Thanks,
A

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEKR55odxVrielLu+DXB7EBNWQZikFAmibYS0ACgkQXB7EBNWQ
Zil1jw//QQ5bgErw7sxFnhXU7Cgd4wWoeEIHHygHRreqM69+WBdJPn+nDwYjZcsF
raKPVgp6ZCfPNo8UkTPqgnJ8uMvWl2ANLOGewFHP5d2EiEyrxnOwRHa1CeiB1WJa
ETWk8+9vuSRGvmwvVbbJ53TYUMme1khgzhHApqNHFFXA9JE4Zx4YM2fTOVV863Zn
VBQzA7wtvQW3i/TZAzHc8xfs/38mIiKtvn0w16Ljqd+A7ZmGCPna8rJHCzupQTfx
7rriGtcgkJe34AnjMV06znsHxqCHQjwoL0CHnmDreFhH8MK+bgFW8VgAJ72lQfMf
re0eQ2i9Z7GyHDXgXmJkdTbRkAJyPgq7gwq4M5C5OBZrlIK4WUuJlJqjzfPyXZrD
VzBVd/Duy5yTc/CZcaup95rwW306+hks20fddCmPLsU6Ch+UnX+LNhwylVN9BrlJ
DPV+SR5HIYQ04DEx1auTB1QI7V3UJ7n6SWlLEhgnHiETkghEeucqBGwzTlka/7MT
eKfdUhHf8Z9/nnaViMPmbTPUzdUph5qJh9HvJ1RUr7n/Z9jR6MKzMih3HOIicKhj
h7dbgeUWPAWhkrUtKgQkSnpYIrvwCt7iX1Pm39tn8buv+xyB2Ji6dXRdeAGgW7GA
V8IFQaPzqVaQ5PRHvAgIixd796WKX1CpRae/G/kYgoBSK5eiKRI=
=bmQw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.