[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
OpenPGP header (was: Re: Meet in Paris?)
I forgot to raise the question of whether the WG wishes to adopt this
document as a work item. Is there interest in doing so?
I fear the precise wording to deal with a "supports" token may be
contentious, and will likely bring back the PGP/MIME vs vanilla PGP in
e-mail environments discussion, so hold that in mind when deciding.
I think there are two orthogonal questions that a "supports" token
1) Preference between PGP/MIME, vanilla PGP, or hybrid.
2) To signal that the originator wants personal e-mail PGP
It may be overloading to have the same token address both matters;
arguing for two new tokens. It may also be that either one of 1) or
2) should not be done now. As a proponent of a PGP/MIME-only e-mail
world -- possibly except for the few cases  when vanilla PGP can be
used interoperable -- I would not mind if 1) was not supported at all.
 US-ASCII, no format=flowed, no lines starting with From or '-',
Derek Atkins <derek@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I'd be happy to put you on for 5-10 minutes? I really don't
> think it will slow down 2440bis.
> Simon Josefsson <jas@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Derek Atkins <derek@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Do the members of this working group feel we need a meeting
>>> in Paris? I think we might want to meet in order to consider
>>> work beyond 2440bis (e.g. PFS, Mail-Headers, or other work
>>> that's been proposed).
>> I would likely be around to talk about the OpenPGP mail header , if
>> there is interest. Feedback from OpenPGP experts on the usefulness of
>> adding a "supports" token to the header is one open issue that may be
>> useful to discuss.
>> I'd hate to see anything slow down 2440bis further though.
>>  http://josefsson.org/openpgp-header/
> Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
> derek@xxxxxxxxx www.ihtfp.com
> Computer and Internet Security Consultant