[openpgp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-persistent-sy mmetric-keys-02.txt

Hi, Daniel.

On 05/11/2025 07:24, Daniel Huigens wrote:
>> I think we should pick an extensibility mechanism sooner rather than
>> later. If we register the special asymmetric code point 0, then IMO this
>> implies that future extensibility will be marked by packet version
>> bumps.
> I don't think this is necessarily true. If we define algorithm ID 0 as
> AEAD, then the most natural point of extension is the AEAD algorithm
> registry.

Sure, but the ink is barely dry on AEAD modes, and mapping 0 explicitly 
to AEAD assumes that all future extensions will fit in the AEAD 
paradigm. What if in 2035 we decide there's a better construction than 
AEAD, just like we decided that AEAD was better than MDC? Defining a 
non-AEAD "AEAD" algorithm just extends the messiness to a second registry.

Stepping back a bit, the prior art in the other registries is that "0" 
means "None", and if we can construct something future-proof using this 
interpretation, let's do it. But if we need to put an asterisk beside 
"None" to say "(* None means AEAD)" then I think we're stretching, and 
should maybe just use a normal code point?

A

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]