-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 08:04 1997-11-05 -0800, mark(_at_)unicorn(_dot_)com wrote:
I have no great problem with defining the neccesary flags and tags
as 'implementation defined' so that non-CMR applications won't barf
when they see them, but I certainly do not want to have to build
snoopware into my applications in order to comply with the standard.
Mark's idea is a good one. It makes Open-PGP compatible with current
implementations and does not add any dangers. It also leaves the door
open for developers who need to implement CMR for their markets. PGP 5.0
does not choke on keys with ARR fields. This is the behavior we need to
document. Whether or not an Open-PGP compliant application responds to
ARR requests should be an implementation decision.
Writing a completely new messaging security standard, even if one is
needed, is not part of the charter. I recommend we stay within the
charter and move forward with open issues.
Tony
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850
Comment: Anthony E. Greene PGP-RSA-KeyId: Pub 1083 0x78CD4329
iQCdAwUBNGDHZkRUP9V4zUMpAQHYDAQ6AgdTR7uN8/ZKKdNCQCJhjvFRSkW8TWeD
4mhVBxEmuaNxE2ZeqqkSZ2MZT85emFMd7YmP1NkQTmzKECWiatrAG1wT3Jf1HJQ8
ZvOZuN8xgm6NkpmnD4jWMOYhgLeOyX7q24Vn563v/Yp86ZgBN93Jcv73JvGWbi5/
s/a8YcBtO/3O8kWBEn8EAg==
=uM4v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----