I forgot to raise the question of whether the WG wishes to adopt this
document as a work item. Is there interest in doing so?
I fear the precise wording to deal with a "supports" token may be
contentious, and will likely bring back the PGP/MIME vs vanilla PGP in
e-mail environments discussion, so hold that in mind when deciding.
I think there are two orthogonal questions that a "supports" token
could address:
1) Preference between PGP/MIME, vanilla PGP, or hybrid.
2) To signal that the originator wants personal e-mail PGP
encrypted.
It may be overloading to have the same token address both matters;
arguing for two new tokens. It may also be that either one of 1) or
2) should not be done now. As a proponent of a PGP/MIME-only e-mail
world -- possibly except for the few cases [1] when vanilla PGP can be
used interoperable -- I would not mind if 1) was not supported at all.
Thanks,
Simon
[1] US-ASCII, no format=flowed, no lines starting with From or '-',
see <http://josefsson.org/inline-openpgp-considered-harmful.html>
Derek Atkins <derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com> writes:
I'd be happy to put you on for 5-10 minutes? I really don't
think it will slow down 2440bis.
-derek
Simon Josefsson <jas(_at_)extundo(_dot_)com> writes:
Derek Atkins <derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com> writes:
Hi,
Do the members of this working group feel we need a meeting
in Paris? I think we might want to meet in order to consider
work beyond 2440bis (e.g. PFS, Mail-Headers, or other work
that's been proposed).
I would likely be around to talk about the OpenPGP mail header [1], if
there is interest. Feedback from OpenPGP experts on the usefulness of
adding a "supports" token to the header is one open issue that may be
useful to discuss.
I'd hate to see anything slow down 2440bis further though.
[1] http://josefsson.org/openpgp-header/
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant