On Thu, 18 Mar 2021, Ángel wrote:
On 2021-03-17 at 09:28 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
The current draft (and RFC 4880) seems internally inconsistent about
the
mandatory nature of the "Hash" armor header in the Cleartext Signing
Framwork section.
In particular, it defines 'one or more "Hash" Armor Headers' as an
official part of what a clearsigned message looks like, but then it
discusses what it means when such a header is absent.
And it was copied from rfc2440 as well.
I think the phrase
- One or more "Hash" Armor Headers,
should have been
- One or more Armor Headers,
Then it covers other armor headers that may be present, such as
"Charset:", and then it suddenly makes sense the following discussion
about a missing Hash header.
I did not see (or miss?) other people agreeing or disagreeing on this
chance. Before I commit anything, I would like to know if the WG agrees.
Paul
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp