Subject: Last minute language nit on clear signing

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 18:30:10 -0400

Squeaking in under the wire.

Section 7, Cleartext signature framework says:

    It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII
    armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable
    without special software.

Suggest "It is sometimes desirable to sign ..."

(i.e. add a "sometimes".  It's not always desirable to clearsign).

David

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 16:52:43 -0700

> (i.e. add a "sometimes".  It's not always desirable to clearsign).

That really is a nit, and one that I disagree with. I will also admit  
to crotchetiness today.

Saying "X is desirable" does not imply "~X is undesirable." There is  
a middle ground between, "It's desirable to be able to park at the  
airport" and "Taxis should be banned." Saying, I like ice cream does  
not imply that I hate flan. I read that 'graph as saying  
"Clearsigning, good." That's it.

Here's a counterproposal: "It is desirable to be able to sign..."  
thus explicitly saying that it's an option. How's that? Better, worse  
than yours? Or should we just leave it as is?

	Jon

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 00:21:34 -0400

> "Clearsigning, good." That's it.

The text struck me as implying "Clearsigning, you should" (as in it is
desirable to clearsign in preference to the other type of signing).
Total nit, of course, and I doubt anyone actually thinks that, but
there was a small "huh?" pause when I read past that section.

> than yours? Or should we just leave it as is?

I like your solution better.

David