[Top] [All Lists]

Re: expedience, consensus and editing

1997-11-28 22:06:13
At 09:08 PM 11/26/1997 GMT, Adam Back wrote:
I would like to see more rapid progress in this forum.
We've been too busy fighting about important political issues
to get done quickly, but I think we're near rough consensus.
IETF-SMIME hasn't had this problem, because they're already doing MIME,
and don't have a CMR feature to fight about.

I'd prefer MAY, but won't object to SHOULD.
3) 32 bit int clean up shelved for OpenPGPv2, or discussed now
Shelve it.  It's nice, but not a big issue.  The more important
clean up that's related is making sure there's a mechanism for
indefinite-length material so we can do things like streaming,
which the older PGP formats appeared to support better than the new one.

4) CMR/ARR and alternatives worked through now or shelved for OpenPGPv2,
Agree with your "define subpacket type 10 as reserved for future use".

Dave Crocker writes:
Ok.  So you implement armor and I implement MIME.  How do we interoperate?

Binary, and leave transport issues up to the user.  Works fine.
I think Armor needs to be a SHOULD to reduce this problem,
especially for compatibility with the PGP 5.0 and 2.6.2 bases,
and making MIME a SHOULD might also help with newer applications.

The main reason for not making Armor a MUST is to keep things small 
for minimal environments like smartcards, 
though Some People just don't like it and have other agendas. :-)

Bill Stewart, stewarts(_at_)ix(_dot_)netcom(_dot_)com
Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

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