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

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Thu, 18 March 2021 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
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 BE3103A2539 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 01:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.099 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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=gnupg.org
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 1-R7ie6kjHzQ for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 01:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (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 BB4D53A252C for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 01:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnupg.org; s=20181017; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zBIFGEOltTpTCSwI3gyqJ8GJdKtBMhT4z+3SeP9WIpE=; b=kpTfExMNodVuXkhhRs6jfSw/oB ymJxdegzfzTgenuJczz8R38LJsnk8pfXssiShRGwiaN0Qyeqjz6Xs34ew+CJXqnDHzoZRpc6Y2BEd dEUvOMHZMmcAZhf/H3GSCHC1oIWyusWaPdOxMQy/7NqnRWXknlEpajvFfNWKc8dCpy9w=;
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1lMoM5-0006vR-2D for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:50:09 +0100
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.92 #5 (Debian)) id 1lMoI8-0000El-VJ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:46:04 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81ngel?= <angel@16bits.net>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <875z1p7vva.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <0b29b5c446910e9dfe1ac89854f17012fc143851.camel@16bits.net>
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81ngel?= <angel@16bits.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:46:04 +0100
In-Reply-To: <0b29b5c446910e9dfe1ac89854f17012fc143851.camel@16bits.net> (=?utf-8?Q?=22=C3=81ngel=22's?= message of "Thu, 18 Mar 2021 02:20:02 +0100")
Message-ID: <87o8fgrgs3.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=Afghanistan_halcon_bank_Looting_Law_enforcement_Reno_OTP_State_of=em"; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/pp8NlvM_OvSHLIJev9rfe8K41bA>
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: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:50:19 -0000

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 02:20, Ángel said:

> I think the phrase
>>      - One or more "Hash" Armor Headers,
> should have been
>>      - One or more Armor Headers,

Nope becuase ...

> Then it covers other armor headers that may be present, such as
> "Charset:", and then it suddenly makes sense the following discussion

There should be only one Charset header.

ctuallay I would like to drop Charset because it is useless becauuse we
can also interpret that the Charset must be UTF-8.  In any case, MIME is
a way better method to define such properties.  Better have that only at
one place to avoid conflicts - and the armor header are not protected
which has led to questions in the past.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.