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

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Mon, 12 August 2002 17:32 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01622 for <openpgp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:32:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g7CHQDU16829 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porta.u64.de (porta.u64.de [194.77.88.106]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g7CHQAw16824 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200208121726.g7CHQAw16824@above.proper.com>
Received: from uucp by kasiski.gnupg.de with local-rmail (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 17eK6M-0005WR-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:39:38 +0200
Received: from wk by alberti.gnupg.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17eJ0v-0004hM-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:29:57 +0200
X-From-Line: nobody Mon Aug 12 19:29:15 2002
To: Florian Weimer <Weimer@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE>
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-06.txt
References: <200208121120.HAA16270@ietf.org> <87eld41880.fsf@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE>
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
X-PGP-KeyID: 621CC013
X-Request-PGP: finger://wk@g10code.com
X-FSFE-Motto: Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est.
X-FSFE-Info: http://fsfeurope.org
Organisation: g10 Code GmbH
In-Reply-To: <87eld41880.fsf@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE> (Florian Weimer's message of "Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:07:27 +0200")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/20.7 (i386-debian-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Lines: 20
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>

On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:07:27 +0200, Florian Weimer said:

> IMHO, the draft does not specify the semantics of expiration in a way
> which would warrant such statement.  I don't believe we can agree on a
> specific set of expiration semantics even in the limited circle of

PNX (PGP is not X.509) ;-)

> BTW, the referenced paper (http://www.counterpane.com/pgp-attack.html)
> is definitely worth a read.

And the reason why Jon released the draft and sharped the MDC wording.

I see no more problem with the draft.  How lets try again to kick off
the the interop tests.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner