Re: [openpgp] rfc4880bis and draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01

Werner Koch <> Wed, 28 November 2018 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9E6130DEC for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:40:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3LQNcaUJ2Mbn for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:40:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 212FB130DE8 for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:40:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=EQZVUB1vLKnaRglalBsiblgTVZWVO0Aa4CJFfc3lcwg=; b=IynrI/7vDVomcqeH4aj+erntjs a3nZpOLpCCpekTFuUpxseDxlOhArKAt0pAMOWa61Yv7IfmwbR2onwBDUQ2GWsTuaSYpTu1zJIMfNO 17Z6mVHC02Ouz7Om7NXq7bMCRblhFio/FO4KvFUPfeJHnOleNWmP4roRWbEiQ2O9XmLE=;
Received: from uucp by with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1gRuS8-00065n-TS for <>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:40:08 +0100
Received: from wk by with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1gRuRq-0005o2-Es; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:39:50 +0100
From: Werner Koch <>
To: Ronald Tse <>
Cc: "openpgp\" <>, "Mark D. Baushke" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: Ronald Tse <>, "openpgp\" <>, "Mark D. Baushke" <>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 08:39:44 +0100
In-Reply-To: <> (Ronald Tse's message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2018 05:00:25 +0000")
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=S_Key_afsatcom_New_World_Order_JFK_Fedayeen_Chobetsu_virus_ANC_hacke"; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] rfc4880bis and draft-openpgp-iana-registry-updates-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 07:40:13 -0000

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 06:00, said:

> The question raised by Werner (as I understood it) was more about how
> to align the IANA considerations given in 4880bis with this document,
> and whether to merge the said document into 4880bis. For the intended

Right.  I am not sure what is the right procedure here.  Are the tables
with the various ids in rfc4880bis normative or are the informational
and the IANA registry is the normative reference for them.  For
practical point of view I would like to have the tables in rfc4880bis
to be normative with the note that the IANA registry defines updates to
these tables.

I agree with Ron that the procedures on how to update the IANA registries
do not belong into rfc4880bis.  We need some advice from IETF procedures
experienced people (or a pointer to an RFC describing these procedures).



Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.