IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: What's left before a new RFC?

Marc Mutz <mutz@kde.org> Thu, 18 April 2002 11:09 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA01037 for <openpgp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:09:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g3IAq4X01698 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c000.snv.cp.net (h000.c000.snv.cp.net [209.228.32.64]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g3IAq2m01694 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (cpmta 3652 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2002 03:51:57 -0700
Received: from 80.130.169.184 (HELO dirichlet.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de) by smtp.mutz.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 18 Apr 2002 03:51:57 -0700
X-Sent: 18 Apr 2002 10:51:57 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Marc Mutz <mutz@kde.org>
Organization: KDE
To: Marcel Waldvogel <marcel@news.m.wanda.ch>, Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>
Subject: Re: What's left before a new RFC?
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:48:57 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.5
Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org
References: <p05101585b8e3abe7a80e@[192.168.1.97]> <3CBE80FF.6040301@news.m.wanda.ch>
In-Reply-To: <3CBE80FF.6040301@news.m.wanda.ch>
X-PGP-Key: 0xBDBFE838
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <200204181248.57879@sendmail.mutz.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id g3IAq3m01695
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 18 April 2002 10:17, Marcel Waldvogel wrote:
<snip>
> For the Version and Comment headers, I propose to state that they are
> UTF-8, but for interoperability, implementations SHOULD restrict
> themselves to generate ASCII characters.
<snip>

I don't see the how having UTF-8 inside _ASCII_ Armor can be justified. The 
problem is that the ascii armor is going to be used in non-8but-clean 
environments. Else, you'd use the binary format, no?

Because of that, I'm strongly in favour of stating that implementations MUST 
NOT emit armor headers with non-US-ACSII characters in them.

Re: UTF-7. I understand that UTF-7 could be a solution. Only UTF-7 is widely 
considered to be a big mistake, so it shouldn't be used anymore.

Marc

- -- 
Marc Mutz <mutz@kde.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8vqSZ3oWD+L2/6DgRAvUFAJ9BG1s0Z8j+Ylmb17IpK/r7BsQE9ACfcJdz
kBG5Od9TA9P84a7Qnh+NMdk=
=TFvG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email