IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Finalizing OpenPGP/MIME?

Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> Thu, 18 January 2001 08:17 UTC

Received: from ns.secondary.com ([208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id DAA20930 for <openpgp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:17:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02590 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:48:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.nikoma.de (smtp2.nikoma.de [212.122.128.25]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02578 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:48:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobolev.does-not-exist.org (dialin173.pg7-nt.frankfurt.nikoma.de [213.54.38.173]) by smtp2.nikoma.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA45628; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:54:03 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from roessler@does-not-exist.org)
Received: by sobolev.does-not-exist.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7F0142ED13; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:51:36 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:51:36 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: hal@finney.org
Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org, ddt@cryptorights.org, ianbell@turnpike.com, jwn2@qualcomm.com, me@mutt.org, raph@acm.org
Subject: Re: Finalizing OpenPGP/MIME?
Message-ID: <20010118085136.B19087@sobolev.does-not-exist.org>
Mail-Followup-To: hal@finney.org, ietf-openpgp@imc.org, ddt@cryptorights.org, ianbell@turnpike.com, jwn2@qualcomm.com, me@mutt.org, raph@acm.org
References: <200101180050.QAA19886@finney.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.13i
In-Reply-To: <200101180050.QAA19886@finney.org>; from hal@finney.org on Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 04:50:37PM -0800
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 2001-01-17 16:50:37 -0800, hal@finney.org wrote:

> What are the issues with regard to implementations of the
> features in these drafts?  Does it matter whether implementations
> exist or will ever appear?  Should the drafts be held until we
> have implementation experience?

draft-ietf-openpgp-mime-02 has no new _features_.  It just adds some
restrictions to cope with the incompatibilities introduced by
OpenPGP.  To the best of my knowledge, most implementations seem to
work that way anyways.

draft-ietf-openpgp-multsig-01 is the one which defines a new
feature.  I'm not aware of a complete implementation of this one.
The reading end side of the draft is done in mutt, however.

-- 
Thomas Roessler				    <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email