On Sat 2021-06-05 20:23:24 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I guess every implementor who tries to layer OpenPGP on top of an
existing PKCS#1 implementation will eventually learn about this, but I
suspect I'm not the only one who was surprised by this.
Good call, Florian. Can you propose language that would clarify this in
the current draft as implementation guidance? seems like we might want
guidance for both signature generation and verification.
I've opened a request for a new test in the OpenPGP interoperability
test suite to see whether any of the tested implementations can handle
this:
https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/openpgp-interoperability-test-suite/-/issues/54
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp