At 09:08 PM 11/26/1997 GMT, Adam Back wrote:
I would like to see more rapid progress in this forum.
We've been too busy fighting about important political issues
to get done quickly, but I think we're near rough consensus.
IETF-SMIME hasn't had this problem, because they're already doing MIME,
and don't have a CMR feature to fight about.
1) armor MAY/SHOULD/MUST?
SHOULD.
2) MIME as MAY/SHOULD/MUST?
I'd prefer MAY, but won't object to SHOULD.
3) 32 bit int clean up shelved for OpenPGPv2, or discussed now
Shelve it. It's nice, but not a big issue. The more important
clean up that's related is making sure there's a mechanism for
indefinite-length material so we can do things like streaming,
which the older PGP formats appeared to support better than the new one.
4) CMR/ARR and alternatives worked through now or shelved for OpenPGPv2,
Agree with your "define subpacket type 10 as reserved for future use".
Dave Crocker writes:
Ok. So you implement armor and I implement MIME. How do we interoperate?
Binary, and leave transport issues up to the user. Works fine.
I think Armor needs to be a SHOULD to reduce this problem,
especially for compatibility with the PGP 5.0 and 2.6.2 bases,
and making MIME a SHOULD might also help with newer applications.
The main reason for not making Armor a MUST is to keep things small
for minimal environments like smartcards,
though Some People just don't like it and have other agendas. :-)
Thanks!
Bill
Bill Stewart, stewarts(_at_)ix(_dot_)netcom(_dot_)com
Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639