On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:27, look@my.amazin.horse said:
Generally though, I think this type of "there may be valid scenarios",
which make a standard less strict and give more freedom to the
implementation, result in severely hampered interoperability, defeating
the purpose of having a standard in the first place.
I strongly disagree for OpenPGP. The MUSTs, SHOULDs, and MAYs have been
carefully designed and implemented in a sensible way. Thus there are no
real world interoperability problems between OpenPGP implementations.
Case in point, 23 extra bytes make a big difference on embedded systems
if the signature can be encoded in 86 bytes (detached, Ed25519, no
Issuer subpacket). No, this is not a use case you would handle with a
general purpose tool, but OpenPGP should not forbid this use case.
After all we are all better off if a common standard is used also in -
for most people - esoteric use cases.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
/* EFH in Erkrath: https://alt-hochdahl.de/haus */
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp