Re: [openpgp] The checksum may appear

Ángel <> Sun, 02 May 2021 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218A23A1122 for <>; Sun, 2 May 2021 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mLLLT_4b7Hmp for <>; Sun, 2 May 2021 12:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E62093A1121 for <>; Sun, 2 May 2021 12:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C1ngel?= <>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2021 21:35:24 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] The checksum may appear
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: 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

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

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

Best regards