Re: WG Chair Nits & start of WG Last Call: draft-ietf-secsh-publickeyfile-06.txt

[Ben Harris <bjh21%bjh21.me.uk@localhost>]

In article <4240685E.9040200%vandyke.com@localhost> you write:
>>  2) insert a new subsection of section 3 titled "Differences with
>> RFC1421 PEM formats" containing the following text or equivalent:
>> 
>> Implemetors should take care to notice that while the format is
>> superficially similar to that specified by PEM [RFC1421] and PGP
>> [RFC1991], it is not identical; most notably:
>>  1) The other specifications use different BEGIN/END delimeters (five
>> dashes, no space rather than four dashes and a space).
>>  2) there is no blank line before the start of the base64-encoded
>> contents.
>
>Done.

Wouldn't it be better to reference OpenPGP (RFC 2440), rather than PGP
(RFC 1991)?

Other differences that might be worth mentioning:
3) there is no CRC at the end of the base64-encoded block.
4) header continuation uses a backslash at the end of the continued line
   rather then whitespace at the start of the next line.

Also, since the PEM and OpenPGP formats are different, "that specified"
should read "those specified".

A random interesting problem I observe with the header continuation format:
there's no way to write a header whose value ends with a backslash.  I don't
think this is worth worrying about.

-- 
Ben Harris