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

Jon Callas <> Tue, 13 August 2002 06:25 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02505 for <>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 02:25:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g7D6EhP20963 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7D6Egw20955 for <>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 3.1.2); Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:14:45 -0700
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:14:49 -0700
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-06.txt
From: Jon Callas <>
To: Len Sassaman <>, OpenPGP <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
List-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 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?