Re: OpenPGP/MIME changes

Jon Callas <jon@callas.org> Thu, 20 July 2006 18:56 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G3dh1-0003qM-7a for openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:56:15 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com ([192.245.12.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G3de9-0002hT-QO for openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:53:19 -0400
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k6KIXH9V081171; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:33:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id k6KIXHJP081170; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:33:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: balder-227.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k6KIXC1H081115 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:33:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org)
Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (keys.merrymeet.com [63.73.97.166]) (Authenticated sender: jon) by merrymeet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBBB01F932E for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.240.32.214] ([208.54.76.46]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:33:07 -0700
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:33:07 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <200607191802.17107.brian@braverock.com>
References: <20060714174935.5A2F1DA820@mailserver8.hushmail.com> <CCFC4799-4C83-44D5-8FC2-1F010EC75D1C@callas.org> <20060719210824.GM13108@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> <200607191802.17107.brian@braverock.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <42473FF0-BB0D-4CB9-8ECC-E810AD9C7E86@callas.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>
Subject: Re: OpenPGP/MIME changes
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:33:09 -0700
To: OpenPGP <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
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>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9


On 19 Jul 2006, at 4:02 PM, Brian G. Peterson wrote:

>
>> On 2006-07-19 13:44:13 -0700, Jon Callas wrote:
>>> * OpenPGP/MIME work. We have issues with OpenPGP/MIME and
>>> interoperability with it. ... At the other end of the scale,
>>> tidying up OpenPGP/MIME means coming up with a profile of an
>>> existing standard.
>
> On Wednesday 19 July 2006 16:08, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>> So, the current OpenPGP/MIME spec is already relatively strict
>> and actually takes away some of the degrees of freedom that the
>> original PGP/MIME left open.  Would you care to elaborate a bit
>> more about what points you'd like to clean up?
>
> Look back a ways in the archives to the various tabled discussions on
> OpenPGP/MIME and the other variants (inline/partitioned) for email.  I
> remember significant issues being discussed around offline signature
> verification on binary attachments, signatures on signatures (chain of
> evidence), and interoperability issues on the layout of MIME parts.
>
> All of the issues that I mentioned above from memory are issues  
> that are
> directly important to me that I would be participating heavily in  
> working
> on fixing.  This working group correctly tabled a lively discussion on
> some of these issues over a year ago to focus on getting 2440bis
> finalized.

Thanks.

That's basically it.

I wrote down all the things I could remember that we'd said we'd talk  
about later. It's quite possible or even reasonable that for any (or  
all) of these that the WG would decide we're not interested, or that  
an individual submission is just fine.

	Jon