[openpgp] Re: PQC requires urgent semantic cleanup

On 20/11/2025 14:52, Heiko Schäfer wrote:
>
> PS: As suggested in the discussion at IETF 124, working through bite- 
> sized chunks of the topics raised in draft-gallagher-openpgp-signatures 
> seems like a pragmatic strategy to me as well.

Perhaps the first "bite" should therefore be Section 9 (Time Evolution 
of Signatures)? Does it make sense to separate this from the rest of the 
document? Would we have to also include some or all of Section 8 
(Revoking signatures and keys)?

> Clarifying semantics questions that the Interop Test Suite already 
> touches on could be a natural starting point.
> Once those semantics are clarified, maybe we can iteratively come up 
> with additional test cases that cover more testable semantics questions.

Perhaps we should draw up a list of tests where implementations 
disagree, and identify which of those inconsistencies can be attributed 
to unclear specifications?

A

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