Subject: [Openpgp-dt] 20211011 DT meeting notes

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 15:50:09 +0100

OpenPGP DT meeting 20211011

Present

- Daniel H
- gniibe
- Justus
- dkg
- Stephen

# Agenda:

     the usual

# Next I-D for discussion at IETF-112:
     - modulo 64 being done and 66 rebased action is on SF to chat with 
Paul wrt I-D

# Specific Merge Requests (MRs):

## https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/64
     - Daniel H did some more work on table presentation
     - action on Daniel H: change byte->octet string

## https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/66
- action on DKG to rebase this based on 64 (once reviewed)

## https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/67
- closed by SF being OBE

If 64/66 ready for merging when sf chats with pw then ask for those to 
be included in merge. If not quite ready, see if we can wait for 'em...

# Teeing up some items for discussion where we expect resolution to hit 
an I-D after IETF-112...

1. MTI https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/48

2. IDs in transferable
   https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/49
   https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/42

3. EdDSA flavor (uncontroversial)
    https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/68

4. How will we know when we're done enough for a publication-request?
(dkg: part of that is to review the step-by-step branch to ensure that 
we've covered everything from rfc4880bis-draft-10)

order in which we'll chat about 'em: 3,1,2,4

## 3. https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/68
- OK with people on the call, ok to merge now for IETF-112 timeframe

## 1. https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/merge_requests/48
- Justus: suggests ECDH as MUSTs
- if we have a MUST for ECDH we need a MUST curve (or >1)
- "MUST support ECDH" yes
- 1 or more MTI curve?  yes
- p256 and/or x25519 ok? yes
- which or both? everyone ok with 25519
- is 448 anywhere here? not a MUST; a SHOULD (if your crypto library 
does it)
- p256? nobody in DT arguing for SHOULD

- EC signatures
- EdDSA is a MUST
- suggestion is: ed25519 as a MUST

GOT HERE on today's call, with above agreed by those on call, we'll pick 
up discussion of questions below next time

- what about ECDSA?
- maybe somewhere between don't-care and SHOULD
- regardless, the curve to map to is p256

- What about DSA/elgamal?
- is it time to drop/deprecate? if so, how?

- RSA as a SHOULD or MUST
- AEAD mode text is needed (and may be tricky)
- compression: CRIME => maybe better no SHOULD? or... 
(https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/openpgp-interoperability-test-suite/-/issues/64)
- why the change anyway?

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:56:24 -0400 (EDT)

>     - action on Daniel H: change byte->octet string

Can some DT members show they approve the current PR with Daniel's
latest changes?

> - action on DKG to rebase this based on 64 (once reviewed)

I'm waiting on dkg for this one, but if people approve 64, I can also
look at picking it up if dkg hasn't gotten to it yet. Perhaps dkg is
waiting on 64 to be merged first as well.

These have all been merged now: 35, 69, 70, 71, 72

Paul