| 1 |
On 07/04/2018 10:42 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> 1. I suppose the ECC/cv25519 packets won't change in incompatible manner |
| 3 |
> at this point. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
It being implemented in gnupg-2-2 is a good indication it won't be |
| 6 |
allowed to change at this point |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 2. Hardware incompatibility issues are not really relevant to us but to |
| 10 |
> the person using the key. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It is relevant to us to the extent of discussion for hardware token for devs |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> 3. Developer keys are mostly for internal use, while the majority of |
| 16 |
> users verify only the infra signatures, so I don't think we have to be |
| 17 |
> that concerned about interoperability of the algos, provided that it |
| 18 |
> works for infra purposes. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This depends on the discussion of rsync vs git, if you expect end-users |
| 21 |
to verify git commits from developers directly you require them to use |
| 22 |
the 2.2 branch, whereby some server users prefer 1.4 for its smaller |
| 23 |
footprint etc. If we conclude that the git repo is internal and not to |
| 24 |
be exposed to end-users per se, but distribution happens in curated git |
| 25 |
or rsync I agree it is not an issue. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 29 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 30 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives