From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Fri Dec 17 16:38:01 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13926 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:38:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBHKtUhx052489; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iBHKtU8a052488; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBHKtTMv052472 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (10.10.10.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5) for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:26 -0800 Received: from [192.168.2.164] ([63.251.255.85]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:26 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: OpenPGP From: Jon Callas Subject: Trailing whitespace in dash-escaping? Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:23 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Sun Dec 19 15:16:32 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27853 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 15:16:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBJJWshn081818; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:32:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iBJJWsPQ081817; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:32:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBJJWoFX081499 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:32:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20041219193235012007qkc8e>; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:32:45 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iBJJWYTS027186 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:32:35 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iBJJWV404971 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:32:31 -0500 Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:32:31 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Trailing whitespace in dash-escaping? Message-ID: <20041219193230.GO10188@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=0x99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Crescent (43% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: 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 From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 23 12:42:21 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02785 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:42:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBNH77pc042033; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:07:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iBNH779O042032; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:07:07 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from albireo.enyo.de (albireo.enyo.de [212.9.189.169]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBNH6wN7041980 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:06:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fw@deneb.enyo.de) Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by albireo.enyo.de with esmtp id 1ChWQM-0007w5-NZ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:06:50 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ChWQL-0002dn-DQ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:06:49 +0100 From: Florian Weimer To: Simon Josefsson Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis References: <874qk1kdje.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:06:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Simon Josefsson's message of "Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:45:18 +0100") Message-ID: <878y7p3pw6.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: * Simon Josefsson: > Florian Weimer 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 owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Sat Dec 25 21:09:30 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA00028 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:09:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBQ1TZTs043954; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:29:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iBQ1TZtJ043953; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:29:35 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from yxa.extundo.com (root@178.230.13.217.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [217.13.230.178]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBQ1TRkO043686 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:29:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jas@extundo.com) Received: from latte.josefsson.org (c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se [217.215.27.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.13.2/8.13.2/Debian-1) with ESMTP id iBQ1TRac004611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:29:30 +0100 From: Simon Josefsson To: Florian Weimer Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis References: <874qk1kdje.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <878y7p3pw6.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> OpenPGP: id=0xB565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt X-Hashcash: 1:23:041226:ietf-openpgp@imc.org::cRx1z3JOVY7jVch4:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000AXx X-Hashcash: 1:23:041226:fw@deneb.enyo.de::dOEnb5YAGPSYq+lA:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000XPhv Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:29:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <878y7p3pw6.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> (Florian Weimer's message of "Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:06:49 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on yxa-iv X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/618/Mon Dec 6 00:09:24 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80j on yxa.extundo.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Florian Weimer writes: > * Simon Josefsson: > >> Florian Weimer 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. Agreed. >> 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". 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBQ1TZTs043954; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:29:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iBQ1TZtJ043953; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:29:35 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from yxa.extundo.com (root@178.230.13.217.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [217.13.230.178]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBQ1TRkO043686 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2004 17:29:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jas@extundo.com) Received: from latte.josefsson.org (c494102a.s-bi.bostream.se [217.215.27.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by yxa.extundo.com (8.13.2/8.13.2/Debian-1) with ESMTP id iBQ1TRac004611 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:29:30 +0100 From: Simon Josefsson To: Florian Weimer Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis References: <874qk1kdje.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <878y7p3pw6.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> OpenPGP: id=0xB565716F; url=http://josefsson.org/key.txt X-Hashcash: 1:23:041226:ietf-openpgp@imc.org::cRx1z3JOVY7jVch4:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000AXx X-Hashcash: 1:23:041226:fw@deneb.enyo.de::dOEnb5YAGPSYq+lA:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000XPhv Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 02:29:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <878y7p3pw6.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> (Florian Weimer's message of "Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:06:49 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on yxa-iv X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/618/Mon Dec 6 00:09:24 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80j on yxa.extundo.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Florian Weimer writes: > * Simon Josefsson: > >> Florian Weimer 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. Agreed. >> 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". 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBNH77pc042033; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:07:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iBNH779O042032; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:07:07 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from albireo.enyo.de (albireo.enyo.de [212.9.189.169]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBNH6wN7041980 for ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:06:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fw@deneb.enyo.de) Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by albireo.enyo.de with esmtp id 1ChWQM-0007w5-NZ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:06:50 +0100 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ChWQL-0002dn-DQ; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:06:49 +0100 From: Florian Weimer To: Simon Josefsson Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Please review OpenPGP part of RFC 2538bis References: <874qk1kdje.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:06:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Simon Josefsson's message of "Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:45:18 +0100") Message-ID: <878y7p3pw6.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: * Simon Josefsson: > Florian Weimer 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". Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBJJWshn081818; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:32:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iBJJWsPQ081817; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:32:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBJJWoFX081499 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:32:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com ([24.60.132.70]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <20041219193235012007qkc8e>; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:32:45 +0000 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iBJJWYTS027186 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:32:35 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iBJJWV404971 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:32:31 -0500 Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 14:32:31 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Trailing whitespace in dash-escaping? Message-ID: <20041219193230.GO10188@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=0x99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Crescent (43% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: 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 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBHKtUhx052489; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id iBHKtU8a052488; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBHKtTMv052472 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (10.10.10.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.5) for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:26 -0800 Received: from [192.168.2.164] ([63.251.255.85]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:26 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: OpenPGP From: Jon Callas Subject: Trailing whitespace in dash-escaping? Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:55:23 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: 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