Subject: editorial commnets for openpgp-mime-05

From: Kazu Yamamoto (山本和彦) <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:11:20 +0900 (JST)

Hi all,

I read openpgp-mime-05 for the meeting today. I think this version
is quite reasonable.

Here are editorial commnets for openpgp-mime-05:

(1) page 3, note:

Two "From" should be "From ". The last SPC is very important since
MTAs don't convert a line started with "From" (not "From ") to
">From".

(2) page 6

There are two item (4). (4) and (5) should be (5) and (6),
respectively.

--Kazu

---

From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:54:52 +0100

> Here are editorial commnets for openpgp-mime-05:

Thanks.  I fixed that in the version of the document which resides
here.

-- 
Thomas Roessler			    <[email-masked]>

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:37:46 -0600

Please pardon me for not publishing our agenda for today's meeting 
earlier.  this is how I plan to spend our hour today:

Agenda bashing (5 min)
PGP/MIME Last Call (15 min)
OpenPGP Oven Cooking Competition (10m)
PGP Consortium (10 min)
Charter review (0-15min)
WG Æ Fin_Wait (5 min)

As I read the PGP/MIME draft, and looking at the comments on this 
mailing list, I don't see any serious obstacles to declaring WG Last 
Call for the draft (modulo my note below).  But I'll allow a brief 
discussion to be sure I'm not misunderstanding consensus.

The Oven Cooking Competition is the work we need to do to advance 
2440 to DRAFT status.  It will also enable us to do most of the 
verification work we'll need for DRAFT status on PGP/MIME (which is 
getting a little ahead of ourselves, but I don't think this is a big 
deal in this case).

I promised Phil I would mention his idea about a PGP Consortium, and 
take the opportunity for those of us in Minneapolis to register an 
opinion.

The charter review is necessary because our charter doesn't include 
milestones for PGP/MIME, curiously enough.  Also we need to determine 
what to do about multiple signatures draft on which the PGP/MIME 
draft depends. PGP/MIME may not be able to advanced to PROPOSED 
status if it contains this reference.  Updating the milestones to 
reflect where we stand on PGP/MIME is a no-brainer, but adding 
Multiple Sigs will require IESG approval to expand our scope.  I'll 
be looking for a hum today on how desirable this is, as well as 
comments from the list.

It's entirely possible we'll get through all of this in less than an 
hour.  My apologies for not arranging for an MBone room to enable 
those not here to participate "live."

best,

-- 

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Perfect authentication would mean that others know for certain all the
   facts about you.  Happiness comes from others knowing a good deal less.
   -- Lawrence Lessig, "Code And Other Laws of Cyberspace", 1999
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:11:06 -0600

There's a normative reference in Sec 5 to draft-ietf-multsig-00.txt. 
In order to advanced to PROPOSED, we'd either have to be ready to 
advance the multsig draft, or eliminate the reference.  What I 
propose is that we eliminate the specific reference here, and advance 
multiple signatures independently.  This way involves the fewest 
dependencies.

Here's the specific text:

To encapsulate multiple signatures with possibly different hash 
algorithms, the method specified in [8] should be used.

[8] in the references is "draft-ietf-openpgp-multsig-02.txt". 
Probably simplest is to delete the sentence, and reference [8].

The multiple signatures draft looks pretty straight-forward.  Unless 
I hear loud objections, I'll ask the IESG if we can modify our 
charter to include it in our work items.  There hasn't been much 
discussion of this draft for some time.  However, because it's not on 
our charter, we have to change the charter before I can submit it for 
consideration as PROPOSED, and I do want to allow some time for Last 
Call after it's on our charter.

Because pgp/mime will be ready shortly to advance, I'd rather not 
have to wait for approval to change our charter before pgp/mime can 
advance.  Once we have both multsig and pgp/mime at PROPOSED, if both 
are ready to advance to DRAFT, we can restore the reference in 
pgp/mime to multsig.

-- 

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Peace of mind isn't at all superficial, really.  It's the whole thing.
   That which produces it is good maintenance; that which disturbs it
   is poor maintenance.
   -- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert M. Pirsig, 1974
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------