Re: [openpgp] "OpenPGP Simple"

ianG <iang@iang.org> Mon, 23 March 2015 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <iang@iang.org>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5901A049A for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ga-eWfdRYC3U for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from virulha.pair.com (virulha.pair.com [209.68.5.166]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF46A1A036F for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tormenta.local (iang.org [209.197.106.187]) by virulha.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DBBE96D734; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:03:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5510718C.50704@iang.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:03:24 +0000
From: ianG <iang@iang.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73AAFB3811@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> <CAHBU6itMP3-wUGF3DAO_wZKwKJPWd=9g8g4GZ=hvnamkqJX55w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHRa8=U-VBGYV0-+MWtvmUAGjh-7X795JLF+hDqDJZ=u79ioQg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHRa8=U-VBGYV0-+MWtvmUAGjh-7X795JLF+hDqDJZ=u79ioQg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/Dp2NsGfc1s66FyHPqO7TRwTmtv0>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] "OpenPGP Simple"
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 20:03:28 -0000

On 17/03/2015 12:53 pm, Wyllys Ingersoll wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:03 AM Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com
> <mailto:tbray@textuality.com>> wrote:
>
>     I have repeatedly found it useful, even in recent times, to
>     cut/paste ASCII-armored messages on my mobile. Am I a Neanderthal?
>
>
> No!  This was exactly my first thought also. ASCII Armor format is
> extremely useful for passing the messages from app-to-app via the system
> clipboard using copy-and-paste.  As a mobile PGP developer, there are
> situations where this is the most convenient way to move the PGP
> message/key from a non-PGP enabled app (like most standard mobile mail
> clients) and into an app that can decode/decrypt it correctly.
>
> If ASCII Armor is to be deprecated, I would hope that we at least
> replace it with something else that can be easily copied-and-pasted.


Ascii armour is also very useful for plaintext keys, which make an 
appearance in contracts that distribute their own PKI.  Which also get 
signed inline with an ascii-armoured signature.  Also very useful.

Now, these things don't get cut&pasted much, if at all, although to be 
fair that was an expectation when I designed them.

But they do get printed out;  the contracts have been in court (twice to 
my knowledge) and their ability to be printed out and looked at by 
judges has been critical to their acceptance as contracts.

In short my 'requirement' would be printable keys and sigs.  I don't so 
much care if it is 'ascii-armoured' in the current form or not, but ... 
something would be nice.


iang



(For those unsure what I'm talking about, there is a form of legal 
contract called the Ricardian Contract which I wrote about here a long 
long time ago:  http://iang.org/papers/ricardian_contract.html This is 
now having a bit of a renaissance in Bitcoin / crypto-currency scenes as 
various businesses are discovering they want to couple legal prose into 
transactions and blockchains and whathaveyou.  End of obligatory plug.)