On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 10:38:12AM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
is particularly clear on how to interoperate.
[IMHO, this is not the goal of the RFC]
I doubt that it was a wise decision to declare the PGP canonical
non-cleartext signature format incorrect (by the way, how does PGP 6
handle them?), but even ignoring that there are problems.
As the draft is written, all OpenPGP implementations must be prepared
to recieve "binary" signatures on a "text" literal data packet (or
even a "cleartext" signature, which of course works only if there was
no trailing whitespace in the document to be signed); or a "canonical
text" signature on a "binary" literal data packet; and so on. I don't
think you'd find many implementations that handle all that correctly.