On Wed 13/May/2020 11:54:12 +0200 Damien Goutte-Gattat via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:02:14AM +0200, Sylvain Besençon via Gnupg-users
> wrote:
>
>> I guess that Curve 25519 is mentioned in the IETF standard, isn't it?
>
> Not yet. Officially, only the NIST P-256, P-384, and
On Wed, 13 May 2020 10:54, Damien Goutte-Gattat said:
> Not yet. Officially, only the NIST P-256, P-384, and P-521 curves are
> part of the standard (since RFC 6637). The first mention of Curve
RFC-6637 allows for arbitrary curves because curves are specified using
an ASN.1 OID. So for example t
On Wed, 13 May 2020 15:09, Stefan Claas said:
> defaults to cv25519... (and does not need to generate a UID for privacy
> reasons, simply fantastic!)
And willfully violating the the standard. Not requiring a user id was
bug in PGP 2 and fixed more than 25 years about with PGP 2.6.3in.
Shalom-S
Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2020 15:09, Stefan Claas said:
>
> > defaults to cv25519... (and does not need to generate a UID for
> > privacy reasons, simply fantastic!)
>
> And willfully violating the the standard. Not requiring a user id was
> bug in PGP 2 and fixed more than 25 years
> With all due respect, do you think when Hagrid and even good old SKS
> key servers supports this feature that people would not applaud you if
> you would consider including it in GnuPG too and reflecting it in the
> respective RFC?
Speaking for myself, I have "rfc4880" in my gpg.conf for damned
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > With all due respect, do you think when Hagrid and even good old SKS
> > key servers supports this feature that people would not applaud you
> > if you would consider including it in GnuPG too and reflecting it
> > in the respective RFC?
>
> Speaking for myself, I hav
> On 14 May 2020, at 23:42, Stefan Claas wrote:
>
> When you work in compliance mode it should be IHMO possible that people
> wishing to communicate with you (from foreign countries) and may have a
> different opinion about privacy, GnuPG should accept such public keys,
> without using extra par
MFPA wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi
>
>
> On Thursday 14 May 2020 at 11:41:00 PM, in
> , Stefan Claas wrote:-
>
>
>
> > GnuPG should accept
> > such public keys,
> > without using extra parameters and that you can
> > easily add them to your
> > key ring,
Andrew Gallagher wrote:
>
> > On 14 May 2020, at 23:42, Stefan Claas wrote:
> >
> > When you work in compliance mode it should be IHMO possible that
> > people wishing to communicate with you (from foreign countries) and
> > may have a different opinion about privacy, GnuPG should accept
> > s
Stefan Claas wrote:
> MFPA wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > On Thursday 14 May 2020 at 11:41:00 PM, in
> > , Stefan Claas wrote:-
> >
> >
> >
> > > GnuPG should accept
> > > such public keys,
> > > without using extra parameters and t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Thursday 14 May 2020 at 11:41:00 PM, in
, Stefan Claas wrote:-
> GnuPG should accept
> such public keys,
> without using extra parameters and that you can
> easily add them to your
> key ring, with a simple label, thus not revealing the
>
> When you work in compliance mode it should be IHMO possible that people
> wishing to communicate with you (from foreign countries) and may have a
> different opinion about privacy,
Sure. And if they're important enough for me to justify breaking
compliance, I am perfectly capable of removing th
12 matches
Mail list logo
