Re: [openpgp] whitespace definitions in OpenPGP [was: Re: I-D Action: dr

On Tue 2021-02-16 10:11:02 +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 18:56, Daniel Kahn Gillmor said:
>
> > It seems clear to me that the text about whitespace that was merged into
> > -01 doesn't have WG consensus at the moment -- iiuc, it may address the
> The problem with such minor changes is that they require extensive
> interop tests.  Back when we started with OpenPGP we had to tweak these
> things a lot until all 3 implementations were interoperable.
yep -- this is a great place to apply an interop test.

I note that there are some "linebreak normalization tests" at the tests
that use SOP:

   https://tests.sequoia-pgp.org/#Detached_signatures__Linebreak_normalization

this contains some un-colored rows where you can see incompatibility
between implementations, and where neither proposed text offers guidance
as to which should be preferred.

Anyone proposing a future textual change to try to improve the situation
should take a look at that list.  Proposals for additional cases to test
would also be useful.

> If we really want to make the definition more strict, lets do this after
> all chartered changes have been done.
I agree that solving this problem isn't higher urgency than the
chartered text, which is why i've proposed reverting to the text from
RFC 4880 and opened https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/11
to track it in our backlog.  (i've tagged it with the "unchartered"
label as a reminder)

          --dkg

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp