[openpgp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-replacementke y-06.txt

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]> Mon, 27 Oct 2025 20:23:54 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.openpgp
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Thu 2025-10-16 00:01:03 +0100, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
> I'm reluctant to open the "what should we do with the unhashed area" and 
> "how trustworthy is a verifying keyserver" cans of worms in this draft!

i agree, i think it would be a mistake to open that can of worms (or any
additional cans of worms for that matter) in this draft.

> Seriously though, if we wanted to revisit this in a later document, we 
> would need to relax some MUSTs to SHOULDs now. I'm not sure it's worth 
> the increased ambiguity though...

I don't think we need to relax the MUSTs to SHOULDs now.  A future
document could just note that it updates this one, and relax those musts
to SHOULDs.  As long as the MUSTs are "MUST ignore" then i think that
will be fine ("MUST reject the entire signature" would cause a different
set of problems for a future relaxation).

    --dkg

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 324 B)