Hey!My name is Paul Schaub (vanitasvitae), I'm a free software developer from Germany.
While I already know what the Apache Foundation is, this is my first time engaging with Apache as an organization, so please bare with me if my mail is addressed to the wrong mailing list.
I'm working on an OpenPGP library for Java named PGPainless[1]. The library is based on Bouncy Castle and aims to make the use of OpenPGP as painless as possible.
Now, there are some efforts going on to create a standardized OpenPGP API called the Stateless OpenPGP Protocol[2]. The specification describes a Command Line Interface application that offers a limited subset of OpenPGP operations.
There are already some language-specific adaptions of this interface available[3]. One of those is sop-java[4], a set of java interfaces that model the Stateless OpenPGP Protocol. The idea behind this module is to offer an implementation-independent set of interfaces, which can then be implemented by different OpenPGP libraries. For example, there is a PGPainless-based implementation called pgpainless-sop[5].
Ideally I'd like sop-java to be moved away from the PGPainless project, to become an independent general API definition that other implementations can implement. That would enable users of the API to switch out the implementation as it suites them (similar to how you can choose from a variety of slf4j backends for logging).
Now the Apache project came to mind as a neutral entity to act as a host/umbrella organization for sop-java. What do you think, is the Apache foundation a good fit?
Let me know what you think :) Paul [1]: https://pgpainless.org[2]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dkg-openpgp-stateless-cli-03 [3]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dkg-openpgp-stateless-cli-03#section-7
[4]: https://github.com/pgpainless/sop-java [5]: https://github.com/pgpainless/pgpainless/tree/master/pgpainless-sop
OpenPGP_0xA027DB2F3E1E118A.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
