Re: What this WG is doing

[Bill Stewart <stewarts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > The main manifestation of this that I know of is the addition of a
> > CMRK subpacket in the signature packet.

>I vote this does not go in.
>If this goes in, everyone will be arguing for their favourite
>extension of the day to go in, and there will be a messy political
>argument, so lets please get this draft out without further argument.

Realistically, PGP Inc. does get a bit of extra slack in OpenPGP.
In particular, if the field really was defined in 5.0 (not necessarily
used, but defined), and probably even if it only appeared in 5.5,
then accepting key records containing it should be part of the standard,
though I strongly agree that any semantics of what to do about it
shouldn't be in the standard.
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, stewarts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639