Post #1834727
2026-04-27 07:34 UTC
@bwh The v4 is short for the Version 4 signature format.
And the story of what is a standard and what is not, is more complicated and debatable, e.g. see https://librepgp.org/index.html#about, especially
"The IETF OpenPGP Working Group (WG) at some point decided to give up on its charter to produce an updated specification and instead started to re-invent that standard. Whether this is in line with IETF rules is questionable."
@letoams Yes, AFAIK LibrePGP's signature format (v5) is incompatible to v6's.
Replies (1)
-
@letoams@defcon.social 2026-04-27 17:54
@GnuPG @bwh that statement is of course wrong, speaking as co-author of RFC 9580 and as former Security Area Director I am well aware of the actual history. The problem now with the Individual (non-consensus) draft of gnupg/Werner is that it pretends to be a draft that will register IANA OpenPGP values, while it doesn’t, and conflicts with the real RFC 9580 that already allocated values. So anything different from RFC 9589 will just cause confusions for real OpenPGP implementations. If it wants to register its own values, it should do so as “reserved” values for IANA OpenPGP so there are no conflicting values. And it should stay away from already allocated values to introduce incompatible behaviour.