RSA was not added in RFC-4880. It dates back to PGP 5 (1997-ish), and was first formalized (in the RFC sense) in RFC-2440 in 1998. It's been in a RFC for 10+ years now. Of course, it's been optional for all that time as well.
Yes; it was more a general statement about why when talking about general interoperability with unknown clients I avoid optional bits or bits newly-added to the standard, rather than a statement about RSA's support in PGP.
Personally, I weigh the ability to use a larger key with a larger hash more than I do the knowledge that I might find some implementation that doesn't like my key someday (I haven't actually found such an implementation yet, but such an implementation could be written and be perfectly OpenPGP compliant).
Generally, I agree with you. My own key is DSA2, for example. But I think that in the main, the advice of looking towards interoperability is a good one, especially if you don't know the capabilities of other clients.
Reasonable people may certainly disagree with me on this. There's a strong case to be made that by shifting to new implementations pressure gets applied to users of outdated implementations to upgrade.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
