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

[Jon Callas <[e-mail]>]

> I think that it would be nice to have the NAI X.509 packets documented.
> Having quasi-offical data formats that implimentors need to deal with, but
> are not documented, sounds like a bad idea to me. (Though, if it belongs
> in a seperate Internet Draft, I have no problem with that. But there
> should be some place to go other than the PGP source for this
> information.)

It would be nice, but we have to get the owners of that code base to be
willing to document it, or have someone else do it. I presume there's
consensus that this is a good idea, as there are no further comments?

I want to get soon a new RFC number, so let's look at what there is to
finish up.

* I've completely spaced on the notary signatures, apparently, so I'll get
those in soon. 

* I'll look at signature subpackets, and if the spec needs changes to jibe
with reality, I'll do it. MUSTs changed to SHOULDs, right?

Anything else?

    Jon