Re: Cleartext Signatures

[David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:58:03PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 03:30:29PM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> >
> >
> >>That mantra has shown to be a less than great idea recently, since it 
> >>promotes interestingly obscure security holes, so I still would like to 
> >>know what the correct behaviour is, and I'd like the I-D to accurately 
> >>document that behaviour.
> >
> >
> >In that case, the empty line should be mandated,
> 
> I agree.

As do I, but it seems to me that it is already mandated.  Section 6.2
(Forming ASCII Armor) mandates the line.  Section 7 (Cleartext
signature framework) refers to "The ASCII armored signature(s)".
Doesn't it them follow that the armored signature (like all armor)
mandates the line?  Am I reading into something that isn't there?

David