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

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Tue, 13 August 2002 11:34 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 HAA08057 for <openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:34:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g7DBQGg29087 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 04:26:16 -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 g7DBQDw29083 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 04:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uucp by kasiski.gnupg.de with local-rmail (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 17eaxi-0002Ak-00; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:39:50 +0200
Received: from wk by alberti.gnupg.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17eZrF-0000kH-00; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:29:05 +0200
To: Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>
Cc: Len Sassaman <rabbi@quickie.net>, OpenPGP <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-06.txt
References: <B97DF1E9.704E%jon@callas.org>
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
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:29:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <B97DF1E9.704E%jon@callas.org> (Jon Callas's message of "Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:14:49 -0700")
Message-ID: <87wuqvgfpa.fsf@alberti.gnupg.de>
Lines: 22
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
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 23:14:49 -0700, Jon Callas said:

> It would be nice, but we have to get the owners of that code base to be
> willing to document it, or have someone else do it. I presume there's
> consensus that this is a good idea, as there are no further comments?

I think it is far easier to allow PGP keys for TLS (there is a
specification and at least one implementation) than to intermix the
two protocol and raise the complexity even more.

Afaik, Peter Gutmann is working on a proposal on how to use X.509 keys
with PGP.

> * I'll look at signature subpackets, and if the spec needs changes to jibe
> with reality, I'll do it. MUSTs changed to SHOULDs, right?

Yes.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner