Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-openpgp-openpgp-15 ends Oct 28 1700EDT

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:23:09 -0400

Hi,

The new openpgp internet-draft (version 15) should be out and in the
archives really soon.  The editor and I believe that all open issues
have been incorporated into this version of the draft.  Therefore I am
declaring a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-openpgp-openpgp-15
that will end at 1700 US/EDT on Friday, October 28th.

Jon assures me that draft-15 will be out tonight, so this should provide
ample time for everyone to read and comment on the draft by the Last
Call end-time.

Issues should be sent to the list.  If you feel you want to remain
private you can send them to jon <[email-masked]> and myself.  If you
wish to remain ultra-private you are welcome to send the issues just to
me and I will forward them on anonymized.

Happy reading.

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       [email-masked]             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:54:09 -0700

> ample time for everyone to read and comment on the draft by the Last

It'll be out as soon as I check for massively stupid errors, like  
wrong years, bad paragraph breaks, etc. (which have happened in the  
past).

I believe that this covers all open issues. Derek and I went through  
all the ones on his list and mine, and they're both empty now. If I'm  
wrong, drop me a message.

The possible outside exception is the "Cleartext Signatures" thread,  
where I believe there's no consensus for a change, but I don't see  
anything that can't be added in WGLC if that's not the case.

     Jon

---

From: Ian G <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:39:52 +0100

> anything that can't be added in WGLC if that's not the case.

Ben raised an issue about the blank line separating
the headers from the armour.  Is that mandatory or
not?  I think it should be.

iang

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:01:23 -0700

On 11 Oct 2005, at 2:39 PM, Ian G wrote:

> Jon Callas wrote:
>
>
>> The possible outside exception is the "Cleartext Signatures"  
>> thread,  where I believe there's no consensus for a change, but I  
>> don't see  anything that can't be added in WGLC if that's not the  
>> case.
>>
>

My opinion is that the spec clearly says that the blank line is  
required. If in the real world, there are implementations that don't  
put it in, and yet are generally accepted, then well, okay, but  
that's a standards violation.

I suppose that's reason enough to discuss taking it out, that it's  
more nodded to than observed, but I haven't noticed it being ignored.  
I was surprised that anyone didn't do it.

If consensus is to do something -- hey, that's why it's last call.

     Jon

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:42:14 +0100

Jon Callas wrote:
>>> don't see  anything that can't be added in WGLC if that's not the  case.
>>>
>>
> put it in, and yet are generally accepted, then well, okay, but  that's 
> a standards violation.
> 
> I suppose that's reason enough to discuss taking it out, that it's  more 
> nodded to than observed, but I haven't noticed it being ignored.  I was 
> surprised that anyone didn't do it.

I've only seen this in email, so I'm not actually sure whether its the 
PGP implementation or the MUA. I could gather version strings (for some 
instances) if that helps?

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:42:05 -0700

On 12 Oct 2005, at 2:42 AM, Ben Laurie wrote:

>
> I've only seen this in email, so I'm not actually sure whether its  
> the PGP implementation or the MUA. I could gather version strings  
> (for some instances) if that helps?
>

I'm happy to work merely with the anecdotal evidence that it happens  
a lot.

The only question is whether we should do anything, and if so, what?  
Since the spec really says that the blank line should be there, the  
what would be to relax or eliminate the requirement. I could find the  
right place to add "typically" for example, to indicate that it's  
common convention, but not required.

But that would make any implementation that adheres strictly to the  
present spec to be broken.

     Jon

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:21:16 +0100

Jon Callas wrote:
> I'm happy to work merely with the anecdotal evidence that it happens  a 
> lot.
> 

Encouraging random processing of text strikes me as a bad idea, so let's 
not change the words.

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:39:19 +0100

> present spec to be broken.

Now that the spec is clear to me, I'd say we should leave it as it is.

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:58:00 -0400

> Now that the spec is clear to me, I'd say we should leave it as it is.

The question remains, why was it unclear before?  The text in the spec
should be unambigious.  If you were confused about what it meant, an
extra explanatory sentence is in order to make sure a future developer
does not fall into the same ambiguous interpretation that you did.

-derek