IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-01.txt

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 07 February 2021 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 F2E2E3A13FF for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 14:41:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 FiV6K4ejKtxc for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 14:41:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (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 0CB563A13C5 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 14:41:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DYkdy2pQNzCvg; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 23:41:10 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1612737670; bh=CdaOVUH4xDt6v6iEsJh/6YrKleeFhjj80et/9KGTvow=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZIdY/fLpO2LJX1VfxkjmxGVcbewNqWvl0VN9fkEAoESeR10ET9jfUUigqXMmpbq/9 7TLyx48Zm424DZg0PLgqM4cdmI7Pa5cpeC7rj1z+Fs6z9XzowdFgJHAMRa8xvDJGnc Sw+wLCsFzvczkafmiVuF3OzGmELqjseOOYo7wlIA=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id upR_lZ-_HiLD; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 23:41:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 23:41:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C757F6029B62; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 17:41:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA8566B1E; Sun, 7 Feb 2021 17:41:07 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2021 17:41:07 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
cc: Heiko Stamer <HeikoStamer@gmx.net>, "openpgp@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <1612693541055.92697@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <6f1c429e-7a8d-1ce6-fda5-30ba2b326477@nohats.ca>
References: <161254580617.29620.7114088127291075805@ietfa.amsl.com>, <76fe41fc-f14e-fe3c-db02-7e5b7629dc8a@gmx.net> <1612693541055.92697@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/ynfNLrs6U_nI8B2iyZZoQevaprg>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh-01.txt
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, 07 Feb 2021 22:41:17 -0000

On Sun, 7 Feb 2021, Peter Gutmann wrote:

>> For spaces and tabs the intention is clear for me, however, I am not sure
>> about carriage returns in general. According to Unicode Character Database
>> there are some other whitespace characters, e.g., form feed (0x0c). Should
>> such characters be included, too?
>
> That also just seems wrong in general, the last major OS type I know of that
> used CR delimiters was Mac OS from 1984.  Shouldn't this be LF or CRLF?
> Wherever this came from, it's not in 4880, or any other common RFC that
> defines a format for blank lines.

Question for the WG. Should we change the text to make the entries
"examples" of white space, or should we add a definition of white space?

If the latter, what do the current openpgp implementations define as
white space characters right now?

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email