[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Some -15 comments
I did a quick read over bis15:
In 5.2.1. Signature Types, in the section about the 0x18 subkey
binding signature, the binding for a signing subkey MUST (not SHOULD)
contain a back signature. This was discussed on the list.
We discussed a change to 126.96.36.199 (Notation Data) on the list to
First octet: 0x80 = human-readable. This note value is text, a
note from one person to another, and need
not have meaning to software.
First octet: 0x80 = human-readable. This note value is text.
Any way that can go in? I'm perfectly happy to get an "I Told You So"
if someone is confused :)
5.11. User ID Packet (Tag 13) makes reference to a "RFC 2822 mail
name", but there is no such object in 2822. 2822 calls it a
In 5.13. Sym. Encrypted Integrity Protected Data Packet (Tag 18), the
"(often literal data packets or compressed data packets)"
should probably be:
"(often a literal data packet or compressed data packet)"
since we no longer allow multiple literal packets in a row.
In 13. Security Considerations, in the section discussing the
Mister/Zuccherato attack, the last sentence of the third paragraph is
missing a period.
Aside from that, has anyone heard anything new about the rumored
"bigger DSA" update?