From: Ian Brown <I(_dot_)Brown(_at_)cs(_dot_)ucl(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
Subject: PGP/MIME2
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:38:31 +0000
Hal is right. PGP/MIME needs work on:
- Removing the requirement for armor, if it is not going to be a MUST in
OP.
Actually I proposed usage of MIME base64 instead of PGP armor on the
ietf-pgp-mime ml before RFC 2015 was published. At that time, only one
person supported my proposal. And many rejected it.
I'm afraid that we are repeating the same discussion again. Also, I
wonder why Dave Crocker did not support my proposal explicitly at that
time.
If the discussion should be repeated, it would like to know how
situation is changed comparing one year ago.
- Defining new content-types for the types of OP data which are not
currently covered - detached signatures, non-clearsigned messages, maybe
others.
Sorry. I also proposed to create text/pgp and
application/pgp-encrypted. Since some guys arose objections against
the proliferation of content type, this idea was not included in RFC
2015.
The author of RFC 2015 was particular to alignment to security
multipart. Multipart/encrypted was adopted though its first part is
mostly empty.
S/MIME is now coming and it does not use multipart/encrypted but
application/pkcs7-mime. So, the alignment of PGP/MIME becomes
meaningless from the implementation view of point.
--Kazu