Hi! There is a thing one should remember when talking about GnuPG and *PGP: GnuPG did not start on a clean field but had to be compatible with PGP-5 and later (and also for a long time with PGP-2). Certain details are not as I or others would have done them but they needed to be done in that way because PGP did it so. If was a smart good move from Phil and Jon to initialize the OpenPGP WG in 1997 leading to RFC2440 a year later and with minor updates in RFC4880 another 9 years later.
However, one thing is a specification and the other thing is running code. The running code in 1997 was PGP 5 and GnuPG followed the development and peculiarities of that implementation closely. There has been a good understanding between the folks actually writing the code on how to do things which have not been fully specified of where an one implementation derived from the RFC. The overall result was a way better interoperable protocol than the committee designed CMS specifications with all there profiles and non-interoperable implementation assumptions. Shalom-Salam, Werner p.s. I did not like to coin the term LibrePGP because actually GnuPG was the software which consistently talked about OpenPGP and not about PGP or GPG when talking about the protocol. But eventually I came up with LibrePGP to help avoiding confusion about what new protocol variant we are talking about. -- The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that refuse military service. - A. Einstein
openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
