Received: from mail.dasr.de (mail.dasr.de [202.61.250.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4501D46; Mon, 26 Oct 2026 10:45:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mx.ietf.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=walfield.org; spf=pass (mx.ietf.org: domain of neal@walfield.org designates 202.61.250.5 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=neal@walfield.org Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 11:45:19 +0100 Message-ID: <87fqxs7nb4.wl-neal@walfield.org> From: "Neal H. Walfield" To: Daniel Huigens In-Reply-To: References: <179208448175.12.5117742962151861358@rfc-editor.org> <3CjuRCNAmgJ4p4n6eRDSJgInd1_zPsTvTLkZyqUWiLZxODiDmrNEZzHk2I5SxnbvfGdVu9ZBDL8EU_63UXlyliLOhTa9keYkEUsFj2_I0IA=@protonmail.com> <87jyn47rhr.wl-neal@walfield.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Goj=F2?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/30.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.20.191 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: neal@walfield.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on forster.huenfield.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=disabled version=4.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 06 Jul 2022 17:57:39 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on forster.huenfield.org) X-Spamd-Bar: ----------------------- X-Original-From: "Neal H. Walfield" X-MailFrom: forwardingalgorithm@dmarc.ietf.org X-Mailman-Rule-Hits: max-recipients X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; header-match-openpgp.ietf.org-0; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header Message-ID-Hash: 65TA74HPBT4FQRCD7LA4R3KSNVB4VCCI X-Message-ID-Hash: 65TA74HPBT4FQRCD7LA4R3KSNVB4VCCI X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 26 Oct 2026 10:46:25 +0000 CC: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, daniel.huigens@proton.ch, rdd@cert.org, stndrds-inacio@andrew.cmu.edu, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, debcooley1@gmail.com, gniibe@fsij.org, justus@sequoia-pgp.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, openpgp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list Subject: [openpgp] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9580 (9218) List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Hi Daniel, On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 10:48:04 +0100, Daniel Huigens wrote: > On Monday, October 26th, 2026 at 09:15, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > > Your rephrasing is still unclear to me. Should the decoding step > > reject a line that is longer than 76 characters? When counting > > characters do we count whitespace characters, which "an OpenPGP > > implementation MUST ignore"? > > I would say no to the first, since it's not stated explicitly. > And then there's no need to count the characters (including or > excluding whitespace) either. Thanks. I think that is a valid reading of the text. It's also convenient for me, as that is what we already do in Sequoia :). :) Neal