Re: [openpgp] incomplete/confusing guidance around "Hash" Armor header for cleartext signing framework

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Mon, 03 May 2021 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD62B3A1B05 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2021 19:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 OJgCWO3Bn7yK for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2021 19:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 102593A1B02 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 May 2021 19:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FYRWl2PXRz1bq; Mon, 3 May 2021 04:20:03 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1620008403; bh=NeNONfoJQ2i+iQvVPiWzHGsOEfVIVtnUKdNVsIN4aCE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=g4VgM703SJJ1ILNJeR8OrvH7uLLmG5t/5ujt2IO1er7Dvz3axIfKh+VBoZ/WTz7RD ownJDhKytRdcLY9Dega3x7unwpOE4oRYiCoRZppKgTDsQ4cEwjlMVeMdibx9pfgK+q 3E7ECxF/DnOYcdikx1ErgjvNTAxq+wWIxEsL2AkE=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nFW7RhQ5lw4G; Mon, 3 May 2021 04:20:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 3 May 2021 04:20:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5892F47A34; Sun, 2 May 2021 22:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AC047A33; Sun, 2 May 2021 22:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 2 May 2021 22:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=C1ngel?= <angel@16bits.net>
cc: openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <0b29b5c446910e9dfe1ac89854f17012fc143851.camel@16bits.net>
Message-ID: <a5ebe3f-758c-9e13-3384-21b54561718d@nohats.ca>
References: <875z1p7vva.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <0b29b5c446910e9dfe1ac89854f17012fc143851.camel@16bits.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/XlzOlqwFCrDE8dMbe4xpgFMZu8I>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] incomplete/confusing guidance around "Hash" Armor header for cleartext signing framework
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 03 May 2021 02:20:13 -0000

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021, Ángel wrote:

> On 2021-03-17 at 09:28 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> The current draft (and RFC 4880) seems internally inconsistent about
>> the
>> mandatory nature of the "Hash" armor header in the Cleartext Signing
>> Framwork section.
>>
>> In particular, it defines 'one or more "Hash" Armor Headers' as an
>> official part of what a clearsigned message looks like, but then it
>> discusses what it means when such a header is absent.
>
> And it was copied from rfc2440 as well.
>
> I think the phrase
>>      - One or more "Hash" Armor Headers,
> should have been
>>      - One or more Armor Headers,
>
>
> Then it covers other armor headers that may be present, such as
> "Charset:", and then it suddenly makes sense the following discussion
> about a missing Hash header.

I did not see (or miss?) other people agreeing or disagreeing on this
chance. Before I commit anything, I would like to know if the WG agrees.

Paul