[openpgp] Armored data whitespace clarifications
Richard Hansen <rhansen@rhansen.org> Tue, 23 April 2024 18:30 UTC
Return-Path: <rhansen@rhansen.org>
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 4B0ACC151552 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rhansen.org header.b="t8/EqYB8"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=rhansen.org header.b="TC/AeyBa"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2nhdEqUQeWXA for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spork.scientician.org (spork.scientician.org [IPv6:2600:3c03:e000:66::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E039C14F6A8 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spork.scientician.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spork.scientician.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FE7648F0F for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:30:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from redacted.invalid by spork.scientician.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E04D47E06 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:30:34 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rhansen.org; s=20130902-spork; t=1713897034; bh=gTmCk1269Pe0s/zGiuRyTwqCIdmB5QUpOy0G0OlxzQ0=; h=Date:From:Subject:To:From; b=t8/EqYB8CmJdqIEHw96xvQX8uX7CKy6E8EUJkGP1jnvrhuGI0dAteoloCItgU6pt6 XRXXBBPbNbsDrjyqgMk+gvra/b2iEBu5SGD5JNdgYbu+owgVuiUAgAiyB6MW5MMUcD mXjhPWdwb7T1mpIttiFNjjUqJVTFOPD8+Q4RUsIc=
Received: from redacted.invalid by mail.scientician.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81E5E20017 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rhansen.org; s=20130902-mail; t=1713897031; bh=gTmCk1269Pe0s/zGiuRyTwqCIdmB5QUpOy0G0OlxzQ0=; h=Date:From:Subject:To:From; b=TC/AeyBauXgX/5HvrxFHx/VIH5nCxa7XiRSDSoJwTXwoN/dJVAL4wh8mV+/zyKaVk fCaxWih75aNMcPifZG/FM3jLCWYz0ZlWQhSZmLeypKse5w9SjIJfkXHK4KZgajDc3s R1IY3Vd4upkA1y4o/XAVU9zgf5AUV89dldxN4+Ls=
Message-ID: <59ae3e81-f8cc-4fc1-968c-40810c0ac868@rhansen.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:30:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Richard Hansen <rhansen@rhansen.org>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------NVabbisC5DlvlxeCfH3A2TFz"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/87A2-BWJZy8oGTSE3M1R8HZutCE>
Subject: [openpgp] Armored data whitespace clarifications
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:30:40 -0000
Hi OpenPGP WG, I was recently reading RFC 4880 and draft-ietf-openpgp-crypto-refresh because I was working on a parser, and I thought that the armor syntax specification could use some clarifications. I posed some questions in <https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/issues/175>, but I'd be happy to discuss them here if preferred. Is it too late to make changes to the I-D? I have drafted some changes that I would like to propose, but I don't want to hold up the I-D -- the changes can wait until 4880bisbis. :) Thanks, Richard
- [openpgp] Armored data whitespace clarifications Richard Hansen
- Re: [openpgp] Armored data whitespace clarificati… Paul Wouters
- Re: [openpgp] Armored data whitespace clarificati… Richard Hansen