[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.1, 2.2 and 10.2 Clarification re sigs.

To: ietf-openpgp@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 2.1, 2.2 and 10.2 Clarification re sigs.
From: sen_ml@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:32:26 +0900
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@xxxxxxxxxxxx

i didn't see any other responses to this thread.  was there a verdict
on this issue?

that is, should the specification say:

 Signed Message :- OpenPGP Message, Signature Packet | One-Pass Signed Message

or

 Signed Message :- Signature Packet, OpenPGP Message | One-Pass Signed Message

?

References:
- 2.1, 2.2 and 10.2 Clarification re sigs.
  - From: Erron Criddle
- Re: 2.1, 2.2 and 10.2 Clarification re sigs.
  - From: sen_ml

Prev by Date: Re: Signature Subpacket format questions
Next by Date: Re: Question regarding 2440:5.2.3.16
Previous by thread: Re: 2.1, 2.2 and 10.2 Clarification re sigs.
Next by thread: Re: 2.1, 2.2 and 10.2 Clarification re sigs.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread