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

[Joseph Galbraith <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>]

Ben Harris wrote:
> 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)?

Okay.

> 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.

Done.

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

Done.

> 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.

I think you are right in that it isn't worth worrying about it;
the trivial solution would be to specify that '\\' at the end
of a header line signifies a '\' at the end of the value rather
than a continuation.  But I say let's not bother.

Thanks,

Joseph