Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:06:49 +0100

* Simon Josefsson:

> Florian Weimer <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> * Simon Josefsson:
>>
>>> Is this correct?  Would it be useful to mention other kind of OpenPGP
>>> data packets directly, as well?
>>
>> Why do you want to duplicate this information?
>
> Are you saying any OpenPGP data in the CERT RR should be permitted?

Yes, it would reduce the complexity of the specification.  Otherwise,
this RFC has to be updated each time the corresponding area in OpenPGP
is touched.  This isn't desirable, I think.

>    Public keys can use the OpenPGP public key packet (tag 6) or public
>    subkey packet (tag 14), as described in section 5.5 of [5].
>    Revocation signatures can use an OpenPGP signature packet with a
>    revocation signature type, i.e., signature type 0x20, 0x28 or 0x30,
>    as described in section 5.2 of [5].

I'd prefer language similar to "an implementation SHOULD process
transferable public keys as described in section 10.1 of [5], but it
MAY handle additional OpenPGP packets".

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:29:15 +0100

> is touched.  This isn't desirable, I think.

Agreed.

> MAY handle additional OpenPGP packets".

Good reference.  The section now reads as below.

http://josefsson.org/rfc2538bis/
http://josefsson.org/rfc2538bis/draft-josefsson-rfc2538bis.txt

   The PGP type indicates a Pretty Good Privacy certificate as described
   in [5] and its extensions and successors.  Two uses are to transfer
   public key material and revocation signatures.  The data is binary,
   and MUST NOT be encoded into an ASCII armor.  An implementation
   SHOULD process transferable public keys as described in section 10.1
   of [5], but it MAY handle additional OpenPGP packets.

Thanks,
Simon

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
To: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis
OpenPGP: id=0xB565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:29:15 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]

> is touched.  This isn't desirable, I think.

Agreed.

> MAY handle additional OpenPGP packets".

Good reference.  The section now reads as below.

http://josefsson.org/rfc2538bis/
http://josefsson.org/rfc2538bis/draft-josefsson-rfc2538bis.txt

   The PGP type indicates a Pretty Good Privacy certificate as described
   in [5] and its extensions and successors.  Two uses are to transfer
   public key material and revocation signatures.  The data is binary,
   and MUST NOT be encoded into an ASCII armor.  An implementation
   SHOULD process transferable public keys as described in section 10.1
   of [5], but it MAY handle additional OpenPGP packets.

Thanks,
Simon

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
To: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:06:49 +0100
Sender: [email-masked]

Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:32:31 -0500
From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
To: OpenPGP <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Trailing whitespace in dash-escaping?
Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP <[email-masked]>
OpenPGP: id=0x99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc
Sender: [email-masked]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:55:23PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote:
> 
> Section 7 (dash-escaping) says:
> 
>    Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at
>    the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is
>    generated.
> 
> Should this be changed / removed? I am inclined think so, given that we 
> removed other things about trailing whitespace.

I'm not sure.  I was (and remain) in favor of leaving trailing
whitespace alone on the "binary" signature, but cleartext signatures
are a slightly different beast.

Unlike signatures over literal packets, which are protected by their
binary or ASCII armor shell, the clearsigned message has its text out
in the open, and ripe for mangling by mail systems, cut and paste
errors, and so on.  I think we should leave it as defined now.

David

To: OpenPGP <[email-masked]>
From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Subject: Trailing whitespace in dash-escaping?
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:23 -0800
Sender: [email-masked]

Section 7 (dash-escaping) says:

    Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at
    the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is
    generated.

Should this be changed / removed? I am inclined think so, given that we 
removed other things about trailing whitespace.

	Jon