On 10 Nov 2005, at 9:54 AM, David Shaw wrote:
I did a quick read over bis15:
In 5.2.1. Signature Types, in the section about the 0x18 subkey
binding signature, the binding for a signing subkey MUST (not SHOULD)
contain a back signature. This was discussed on the list.
Fixed.
======
We discussed a change to 5.2.3.16 (Notation Data) on the list to
change:
First octet: 0x80 = human-readable. This note value is text, a
note from one person to another, and need
not have meaning to software.
to:
First octet: 0x80 = human-readable. This note value is text.
Any way that can go in? I'm perfectly happy to get an "I Told You So"
if someone is confused :)
I remember the discussion, I just don't remember the agreement. Such
is the way with rough consensus.
Does it matter one way or the other? I admit to being confused as to
why it matters. Enlighten me, please.
======
5.11. User ID Packet (Tag 13) makes reference to a "RFC 2822 mail
name", but there is no such object in 2822. 2822 calls it a
"name-addr".
Changed to name-addr
======
In 5.13. Sym. Encrypted Integrity Protected Data Packet (Tag 18), the
phrase:
"(often literal data packets or compressed data packets)"
should probably be:
"(often a literal data packet or compressed data packet)"
since we no longer allow multiple literal packets in a row.
Changed.
======
In 13. Security Considerations, in the section discussing the
Mister/Zuccherato attack, the last sentence of the third paragraph is
missing a period.
Fixed.
======
Aside from that, has anyone heard anything new about the rumored
"bigger DSA" update?
I asked during the hash bash and was told, "soon." But then, that's
what I was told at CRYPTO 2004. Don't hold your breath.
Incidentally, I apologize for not getting this out before. I sent it
to the I-D desk, who whined at me. My correction was eaten by an MTA,
which took two weeks to tell me that it was confused, and by then the
meeting lull had happened.
So can we take the two-week comment period for last call and make it
be Nov 21?
Jon