ietf-openpgp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Revising RFC 2015

1998-09-04 06:40:42
In <19980904072249Y(_dot_)kazu(_at_)iijlab(_dot_)net>, on 09/04/98 
   at 07:22 AM, Kazu Yamamoto (山本和彦) <kazu(_at_)iijlab(_dot_)net> 
said:

(3) Others

(3.1) Some people want to encode PGP signature and/or
encrypted message with MIME encoding(e.g not PGP armor
but base64). Should we allow this?

I don't see any benefits from this. 

And I don't see any benefits of PGP armor when used to encode detached
signatures. Note I can see benefits of PGP armor when used to encode
encrypted message for backward compatibility.

We are not bringing up this old ghost are we? Every PGP implementation to
date uses ASCII-Armor, it is there and everyone has the code for it. Using
anything other than Ascii-Armor for 8bit to 7bit conversion of PGP packets
only complicates the issue.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.openpgp.net
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
---------------------------------------------------------------



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