Re: New Draft... going forward

[lutz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lutz Donnerhacke)]

* Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>I hope that the next version of the OpenPGP draft says what is required,
>what is suggested, and what's completely optional. The phrase at the

Should I? Suggestions?

>beginning of 3.1.1 of the OpenPGP draft seems wrong in that it says that
>you can follow RFC 2015 and carry either ASCII armor or binary data;
>however, RFC 2015 clearly says that you must use ASCII armor (in the second
>sentence of section 2 of that document).

Fixed.