On 2001-01-18 13:57:15 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
[T] Replace 'RFC 1847' with 'RFC 1847'. (Consistency)
ok.
[T] Replace 'multipart ASCII armor OpenPGP format' with
'multi-part ASCII armor OpenPGP format' (cf. OpenPGP)
ok.
[S] Make MIME multipart mechanism in favor of OpenPGP multi-part messages
REQUIRED. (It is hard to imagine how OpenPGP multi-part messages can
interoperate with other implementations.)
I don't think this REQUIRED actually is required.
[S] Include wildcard value for "micalg" parameter. (Makes generating
OpenPGP/MIME messages much easier in some situations, but breaks
one-pass processing, of course. Today, the majority of
OpenPGP/MIME installations/implementations doesn't deal correctly
with this parameter anyway.)
I don't think we should break one of the basic design goals of MIME.
Still Section 5, enumeration (2):
[T] Spell 'recommended' in capital letters.
Now in section 3, and I don't think we should make it a
capital-letters recommended.
[W] Replace 'mail transfer agents' with 'mail delivery agents' (or
both). In general, only MDAs touch messages in this way, not MTAs.
"mail transfer and delivery agents"
Still Section 5, example message:
[W] The signature on the example message doesn't seem to be valid (?).
BITNET is dead.
Consider this part of the example as a historical courtesy.
Section 6.1:
[W] The signature on the example message is invalid.
Mhhhh. Do these signatures really have to verify? ,-)
[S] Neither OpenPGP nor OpenPGP/MIME specify the transfer format
of public key blocks, so this section doesn't make much
sense.
They don't sepcify the storage format, but section 10.1 of RFC 2440
describes transferable public keys. It could, however, be argued
that the OpenPGP/MIME document should be a bit more specific about
what is expected in applications/pgp-keys. Maybe like this?
A MIME body part of this content type contains ASCII-armored
Transferable Public Keys as defined in [1], section 10.1.
[T] Replace 'OP' with 'OpenPGP'.
Thanks.
I suppose it's getting time for a new draft. I'll submit one to
internet-drafts, and not consider it final. *sigh*
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler(_at_)does-not-exist(_dot_)org>