Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary

ietf-openpgp

1997-10-24 06:38:09

* Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:

But your comment is correct. I will move the 3.2 description to the
beginning of 5 to support layering.


No, I'll not do this. There is a difference between "3.2 General framwork"
and "5. Packet Types". Sorry for the confusion.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Armor versus MIME versus binary, William Allen Simpson Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, Lutz Donnerhacke Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, William H. Geiger III Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, John W. Noerenberg Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, Lutz Donnerhacke <= Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, Tom Phinney Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, Peter Gutmann Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, Dave Crocker / IMC Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, Timothy Glenn Stockstill

Previous by Date:	Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, William H. Geiger III
Next by Date:	Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, Tom Phinney
Previous by Thread:	Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, John W. Noerenberg
Next by Thread:	Re: Armor versus MIME versus binary, Tom Phinney
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]