Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-06.txt

Florian Weimer <Weimer@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE> Mon, 12 August 2002 17:35 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01703 for <openpgp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:35:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g7CHSfQ16863 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Mail.CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE (mail.cert.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.16.17]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7CHSew16859 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rusfw by Mail.CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE with local (Exim 4.04) id 17eIzh-0006SA-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:28:41 +0200
To: Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>
Cc: OpenPGP <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-06.txt
References: <B97D3D1E.6F34%jon@callas.org>
From: Florian Weimer <Weimer@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:28:41 +0200
In-Reply-To: <B97D3D1E.6F34%jon@callas.org> (Jon Callas's message of "Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:23:26 -0700")
Message-ID: <871y94yoja.fsf@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE>
Lines: 23
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>

Jon Callas <jon@callas.org> writes:

> On 8/12/02 7:07 AM, "Florian Weimer" <Weimer@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, the draft does not specify the semantics of expiration in a way
>> which would warrant such statement.  I don't believe we can agree on a
>> specific set of expiration semantics even in the limited circle of
>> this WG.
>> 
>> BTW, the referenced paper (http://www.counterpane.com/pgp-attack.html)
>> is definitely worth a read.
>
> That particular change was correcting a typo in the previous draft. It has
> nothing to do with the new paper.

Oh, I didn't want to imply *that* (hence "BTW").

I still think that the change is misleading.

-- 
Florian Weimer 	                  Weimer@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE
University of Stuttgart           http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT                          fax +49-711-685-5898