* William Allen Simpson wrote:
I just caught up on the armor argument, and suggest that ASCII armor and
MIME are presentation issues, not message element issues.
Therefore, they should be in separate documents from the binary message
elements. A MIME conformant implementation will not necessarily
implement Armor, and vice versa.
MIME encording is currently and will be seperated. IMHO Ascii Armor should
not be seperated, because it should not be used as independend layer for
messages. Yes, it may contain a literal packet, but it can not contain a
complete other level seven content.
But your comment is correct. I will move the 3.2 description to the
beginning of 5 to support layering.
Note to the editor, could you please standardize on the term "element"
or "message element" instead of "packet". A packet has a well-known
networking definition.
Currently this draft defines: "The octet stream of a PGP message is
seperated into a several chunks. They are called packets."
The term "packet" is used by the Ascii Armor and well known to the public.
Should we exchange it?