[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Armour

1997-11-19 15:19:34
At 01:29 PM 11/15/97 -0800, John  W. Noerenberg wrote:
I'm not arguing that we should totally do away with armour - just that I
don't think it should be a MUST, so that people who want to use OpenPGP
This is probably closest to my own point of view, Ian.  The ability to
generate and accept ascii armor must be preserved for backwards
compatibility.  However, successfully encoding and decoding a message
should not mandate translation through ascii armor.

Let me suggest that the cleanest way to handle this is by including its
specification in an appendix, with a note explaining that is has been used
in the past and that the capabilities defined in the appendix are needed
for processing data from these earlier (pre-standards) systems.  

This puts the old armouring mechanism outside of the formal standard but
keeps people informed about its existance and details, and the reason it
might be useful.

Dave Crocker                                          
Internet Mail Consortium                               +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr.                                    fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA              info(_at_)imc(_dot_)org ,

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>