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

Ángel <angel@16bits.net> Thu, 18 March 2021 01:20 UTC

Return-Path: <angel@16bits.net>
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 1C3893A19E7 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 b0LfZQ0_GXO1 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.direccionemail.com (mail.direccionemail.com [199.195.249.9]) (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 4E5B93A19E9 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 18:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <0b29b5c446910e9dfe1ac89854f17012fc143851.camel@16bits.net>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C1ngel?= <angel@16bits.net>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 02:20:02 +0100
In-Reply-To: <875z1p7vva.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <875z1p7vva.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/sPNvTswBD4yKiExG3NR5cV4b8AA>
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 01:20:07 -0000

On 2021-03-17 at 09:28 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> The current draft (and RFC 4880) seems internally inconsistent about
> the
> mandatory nature of the "Hash" armor header in the Cleartext Signing
> Framwork section.
> 
> In particular, it defines 'one or more "Hash" Armor Headers' as an
> official part of what a clearsigned message looks like, but then it
> discusses what it means when such a header is absent. 

And it was copied from rfc2440 as well.

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


Then it covers other armor headers that may be present, such as
"Charset:", and then it suddenly makes sense the following discussion
about a missing Hash header.

Best regards