[Council] JEP-0027

Max Metral Max.Metral at peoplepcHQ.com
Wed Apr 10 13:47:15 CDT 2002


Right, but doesn't that essentially limit us to PGP?  I understand this is
informational, but it would seem to be one of those things that can be
explained several ways, and I'd like to see it explained as if it was more
flexible than the way it's being used today.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Lin [mailto:mikelin at MIT.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 2:33 PM
To: council at jabber.org
Subject: RE: [Council] JEP-0027


No, the headers basically just say "This is a PGP packet". The encoding
is simply base64 with a small checksum added to it. The encoded data is
a highly structured packet that contains the cryptographic metadata. For
more information see RFC 1991.

-Mike

On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:16, Max Metral wrote:
> Isn't that encoding already algorithm specific?  Or is there some
> overarching format that the contents is in that includes the information?
> 
> From the JEP:
> All program output is ASCII armored output with the headers removed.
> 
> was the metadata in the headers?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Lin [mailto:mikelin at MIT.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:55 PM
> To: council at jabber.org
> Subject: RE: [Council] JEP-0027
> 
> 
> Just as a note, all the cryptograhically relevant data (algorithm, block
> mode, etc.) is already encoded in the ASCII-Armored PGP packet. For what
> it's worth, which is nothing, I vote 1 on this as an informational JEP.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 13:52, Max Metral wrote:
> > I'm going out on a limb and saying -1 until this has more detail.  In
> > addition to what DW said, I wonder if we should have an attribute that
> > explicitly identifies the algorithms used for each step, even if it
means
> > having a default for when the attribute isn't there.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Smith [mailto:dizzyd at jabber.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:46 PM
> > To: council at jabber.org
> > Subject: Re: [Council] JEP-0027
> > 
> > 
> > On 4/9/02 11:19 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 0. 
> > 
> > No issues to wit.
> > 
> > Diz
> > > Perhaps we can vote on JEP-0027? It's informational so I don't think
it
> > > needs a position paper.
> > > 
> > > http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0027.html
> > > 
> > > Peter
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Peter Saint-Andre
> > > email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
> > > weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Council mailing list
> > > Council at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Council mailing list
> > Council at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> > _______________________________________________
> > Council mailing list
> > Council at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council


_______________________________________________
Council mailing list
Council at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council



More information about the Council mailing list