Re: [openpgp] [internet-drafts@ietf.org] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-10.txt

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.com>
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 96FB43A0BA7 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=ihtfp.com
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 66legpzJBwQD for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 700C63A0BA3 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6178BE2042; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:01:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18842-01; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 259FAE2040; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:01:09 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ihtfp.com; s=default; t=1599066069; bh=FibBfG9xEbeOqskHiqbecrR/JLmILtNIqYOHjmooYj8=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:From:To:Cc; b=Spc1bVuJBmHdzej/nRuVL1HOxNj7zV7GGJjPcYXTSm5Y6+PYI0N3NvrFAMZWiYk8j O3yNPkTaoUi0cDVwHOQCr7XiN1w4glr1wrrg0OXQgoL02ELixZVJovMBiAnw8MeAaw IAxtIviIuO/Tt6M6XGRvmwybR0s2cJow9ezauEX4=
Received: from 192.168.248.158 (SquirrelMail authenticated user warlord) by mail2.ihtfp.org with HTTP; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:01:09 -0400
Message-ID: <faf8cb6e433e259dff5f8554fbf4e9eb.squirrel@mail2.ihtfp.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2009021248000.848176@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <87pn763mvq.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2009021248000.848176@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:01:09 -0400
From: "Derek Atkins" <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: "Paul Wouters" <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: "Werner Koch" <wk@gnupg.org>, openpgp@ietf.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22-14.fc20
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/fUa9Z1uAXeh42b0A67zr2xmb0pQ>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] [internet-drafts@ietf.org] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-10.txt
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 17:01:15 -0000

Paul,

On Wed, September 2, 2020 12:49 pm, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, Werner Koch wrote:
>
>
>> 30d8397 Introduce the Key Block subpacket to align OpenPGP with CMS.
>
>> 6fd718d Revert to the RFC4880 requirement of having a User ID.
>
> Were these two changes the result of consensus on the list ?

I don't know about the former; the latter was mostly consensus.  I think I
was the only major objection to it.  It's possible that Jon Callas also
objected at the time, but I don't recall.  Pretty much everyone else
didn't care or wanted to revert this change (which I introduced).  But
honestly, right now, it doesn't make a difference to me either way so I'm
fine with reverting this.  We wound up using a different path for images
and decided to include it by reference using a hash-attribute instead of
by value in an image-attribute, so not using the attribute as originally
designed.  So this reversal doesn't break our code.

> Paul

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant