[openpgp] Re: proposal of draft-ehlen-openpgp-nist-bp-comp f or adoption by WG
Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.openpgp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue 2025-08-12 16:43:40 +0100, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
> 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?
we're talking about a one-octet registry. that's relatively constrained
(yes, i'm aware of efforts to consider UTF-8-ifying it to make it
implicitly larger but i'd rather not go down that path, because i'd
rather have fewer, more-agreed-upon algorithms in the registries than an
explosion of disputed algorithms).
The main rationale i can see to expand the p/e range (beyond binary
"cleanliness" 😂) would be to facilitate drafts that add a lot of
codepoints. That sounds like a not great outcome to me.
--dkg
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 227 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRjrBGOWy5dZsiKhad4C4VO2cK0lgUCaLCn3wAKCRB4C4VO2cK0 lm9CAP0aGjXzYol1KGjEUpDZcijKdDnBRale/VJzx3Hou+tErwD/QjsQc43QKaY4 EKJANLT8dIoOehUMwqD7bDb0U3HsvAo= =PNXQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----