Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] X509 (gpgsm) commit signing support
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 06:33:12PM +, brian m. carlson wrote: > > This series is a fine replacement for that earlier work. It's flexible > > enough to allow what we really wanted out of that series (gpgsm support, > > or another drop-in tool that uses the same interface). It doesn't lay > > any groundwork for further tools (like signify), but I think the > > consensus on the list was to punt on that until somebody had more > > concrete plans for adding such a tool. > > I actually think this moves in a nice direction for adding support for > minisign/signify and other schemes. There's a way to look up what > algorithm is in use in a particular context based on the first line and > a general interface for deciding what format to write. Granted, it > currently still is very specific to gpg-style tools, but I think this is > an improvement in that regard. My issue with this for helping with signify is that it creates a new gpg..* hierarchy with two slots (openpgp and x509). But we would not want gpg.signify.program, would we? That makes no sense, as neither the signature-matching nor the program invocation are gpg-like. But if we later moved to "signingtool..*", now we have an extra layer of compatibility to deal with. E.g., signingtool.openpgp.program is the same as gpg.openpgp.program which is the same as gpg.program. I think we can do that, but it means more historical baggage. I'm OK with that since signify support is purely hypothetical at this point. But that's why I say that this doesn't lay the groundwork in the way that the other series did. > As an OpenPGP user, I have no interest in adding support for other > tools, but I think this should make it easier if someone else wants to > do that. I don't plan to work on signify (or other tools) anytime soon either. My interest here is in x509, since that's what enterprises would use over pgp. I actually dislike pgp for this application, too, because I find the key management kind of complicated and tedious. But at least it's a standard among open source folks. -Peff
Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] X509 (gpgsm) commit signing support
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 01:12:24PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:52:22AM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > > This series can be seen as a follow up of a series that appeared under > > the name "gpg-interface: Multiple signing tools" in april 2018 [1]. After > > that series was not merged i decided to get my patches ready. The > > original series aimed at being generic for any sort of signing tool, while > > this series just introduced the X509 variant of gpg. (gpgsm) > > I collected authors and reviewers of that first series and already put them > > on cc. > > This series is a fine replacement for that earlier work. It's flexible > enough to allow what we really wanted out of that series (gpgsm support, > or another drop-in tool that uses the same interface). It doesn't lay > any groundwork for further tools (like signify), but I think the > consensus on the list was to punt on that until somebody had more > concrete plans for adding such a tool. I actually think this moves in a nice direction for adding support for minisign/signify and other schemes. There's a way to look up what algorithm is in use in a particular context based on the first line and a general interface for deciding what format to write. Granted, it currently still is very specific to gpg-style tools, but I think this is an improvement in that regard. As an OpenPGP user, I have no interest in adding support for other tools, but I think this should make it easier if someone else wants to do that. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] X509 (gpgsm) commit signing support
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:52:22AM +0200, Henning Schild wrote: > This series adds support for signing commits with gpgsm. Thanks for working on this. I left a bunch of comments, but overall the direction looks good. We talked about this a bit off-list, but just for the public record: > This series can be seen as a follow up of a series that appeared under > the name "gpg-interface: Multiple signing tools" in april 2018 [1]. After > that series was not merged i decided to get my patches ready. The > original series aimed at being generic for any sort of signing tool, while > this series just introduced the X509 variant of gpg. (gpgsm) > I collected authors and reviewers of that first series and already put them > on cc. This series is a fine replacement for that earlier work. It's flexible enough to allow what we really wanted out of that series (gpgsm support, or another drop-in tool that uses the same interface). It doesn't lay any groundwork for further tools (like signify), but I think the consensus on the list was to punt on that until somebody had more concrete plans for adding such a tool. -Peff
