From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 94 11:15:02 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: (fwd) Re: Content-Type of application/pgp
Message-ID: <199412191913.LAA08602@netcom8.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Xref: netcom.com comp.mail.mime:5131
Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: nsb@nsb.fv.com (Nathaniel Borenstein)
Subject: Re: Content-Type of application/pgp
Message-ID: <0iv6J0H0Eyt5I2gP0o@nsb.fv.com>
In-Reply-To: <3blaqd$fgn@wegener.ems.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mime
Lines: 17
References: <3blaqd$fgn@wegener.ems.psu.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 94 15:01:06 GMT

After several discussions over the last few weeks -- with Phil
Zimmerman, Jim Galvin, Ned Freed, and others at Email World and IETF --
I have reached the conclusion that the application/pgp type should be
ABANDONED in favor of an approach based on multipart/security.   My
application/pgp Internet Draft is expiring shortly & will not be
renewed.  By using multipart/security, we can work towards a greater
level of harmony between the PEM and PGP communities.  It also now
appears that there's a chance that PEM and PGP keys can be made
interoperable, which would be a huge win.

I don't want anyone to think I'm standing in the way of this
convergence, so I wanted to publicly state that I have abandoned my
application/pgp Internet Draft.

What we need now is for someone to work up a new draft on how to use PGP
inside of multipart/security.  I'm swamped.  Any volunteers?  --
Nathaniel

--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com