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

Re: "Yes, I can handle PGP/MIME"

To: OpenPGP <ietf-openpgp@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: "Yes, I can handle PGP/MIME"
From: David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:12:56 -0400
In-reply-to: <73802EB0-9247-11D8-AA50-000A9568596C@xxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Mail-followup-to: OpenPGP <ietf-openpgp@xxxxxxx>
References: <20040415154656.GA9480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200404161525.30889@xxxxxxxxxxx> <407FF745.9000302@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200404190957.19325@xxxxxxxxxxx> <73802EB0-9247-11D8-AA50-000A9568596C@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6i

On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 02:20:58PM -0700, Jon Callas wrote:
> 
> I'm considering this to be so controversial that there is no consensus 
> for it, and what bits of consensus there are lean away from it.

I think there is consensus that such a flag should not be set in the
"features" subpacket.  There seemed to be at least some consensus that
such a flag would be better placed in a "notation" subpacket.

I'll leave it to the folks advocating a notation solution to propose
something for that ;)

David

Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Yes, I can handle PGP/MIME"
  - From: Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder

References:
- "Yes, I can handle PGP/MIME"
  - From: David Shaw
- Re: "Yes, I can handle PGP/MIME"
  - From: Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
- Re: "Yes, I can handle PGP/MIME"
  - From: Ian Grigg
- Re: "Yes, I can handle PGP/MIME"
  - From: Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
- Re: "Yes, I can handle PGP/MIME"
  - From: Jon Callas

Prev by Date: Re: Whither the 0x40 timestamp signature?
Next by Date: Re: Whither the 0x40 timestamp signature?
Previous by thread: Re: "Yes, I can handle PGP/MIME"
Next by thread: Re: "Yes, I can handle PGP/MIME"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread