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

Dear Chairs,

I would like to follow up on the status of draft-ehlen-openpgp-nist-bp-comp. During the session at IETF 123 the draft status was set to "Candidate for WG adoption" as result of the discussion which was not entirely conclusive. The proposal for adoption on the mailing list (this thread) received positive responses and no objections. If I recall correctly, there has been no change in status for one month now, so I wanted to check in and ask about the way forward.

Could you please let me know if the working group is planning to move ahead with the call for adoption?

Best, Stavros


On 8/28/25 21:02, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> 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]