Re: Diffs for next draft

[Werner Koch <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:42:36 -0700, Jon Callas said:

> This is my point: I don't see an obvious best answer. Furthermore, 2440 is
> a data specification standard, not a user interface guide or software
> construction manual. It tells implementers the things they have to do to be

I really agree with you here.  There are already so many
implementation details in OpenPGP which frankly don't belong there but
can be justified due to the fact that OpenPGP is the specification of
a long standing de-facto standard.

Adding more of these implementation stuff will eventually make OpenPGP
as complicated and bloated as SET.  There are already a lot of concerns
on the complexity of OpenPGP saying that this won't increase security.

The secret key protection is a flaw in the standard and has to be
addressed. Well, the most simple way of addressing it is to say: an
implementation should never send a secret key packet without and
additonal layer of encryption. OTOH, we have the protection and we
should make sure that it this gives us a real protection.


-- 
Werner Koch        Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur
g10 Code GmbH      et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est.
Privacy Solutions                                        -- Augustinus