Re: [openpgp] The checksum may appear

Ángel <angel@16bits.net> Sun, 02 May 2021 19:35 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 218A23A1122 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2021 12:35:31 -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 mLLLT_4b7Hmp for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 May 2021 12:35:29 -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 E62093A1121 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 May 2021 12:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <80412ac99a5883d26ae3524ffb39d3fa1a1d1991.camel@16bits.net>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C1ngel?= <angel@16bits.net>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 21:35:24 +0200
In-Reply-To: <2587c395-7ce0-c9dd-817c-1b53321a8ed@nohats.ca>
References: <20210317145508.136021-1-dkg@fifthhorseman.net> <5a927ffed96b38efa08c58b6a29e565dff87a535.camel@16bits.net> <87blbfpr9b.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <9cf9ae77e21fa330918df0754707e9304a41fd36.camel@16bits.net> <2587c395-7ce0-c9dd-817c-1b53321a8ed@nohats.ca>
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/xhndQ2-SBg05UrNyffKjmG8rWCc>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] The checksum may appear
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: Sun, 02 May 2021 19:35:31 -0000

On 2021-04-28 at 23:58 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2021, Ángel wrote:
> 
> It is not clear to me what the WG would like to do here on the
> "optional checksum" item.
> 
> Ángel proposed something, Werner agreed, but then Ángel wasn't sure
> anymore. It would be good to get more and/or clarified views on this
> issue.
> 
> Paul

Hello Paul

There are two points here.

I proposed a change. Its summary could be "Make explicit that the
checksum is optional".

Werner agreed. But he also mentioned "making the CRC a SHOULD create".
He might have read that into my text (it wasn't my intention on that
patch), or it could have been meant as "we should also make it a
SHOULD".

Making the checksum a SHOULD is the piece I discuss in my second mail,
and the one I'm unsure about.

I still support my initial change (well, if it doesn't turn out to be
unclear).

So there are two issues:
a) if the proposed text is good
b) whether adding a line "clients SHOULD create a checksum"


Best regards