RFC 4880: Is there a good reason to define a specific format for storing cryptographic data ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFC 4880: Is there a good reason to define a specific format for storing cryptographic data ?

Denis BEURIVE

Hello,


I've just finished the implementation of RFC 4880 in Python (at least part of it).


And I am asking the question :


why is PGP not using a standard format to encode data ?


I mean : we could very well use XML, JSON or YAML to represent a PGP document.


Is there a good reason to define a specific format for storing cryptographic data ?


Regards,


Denis


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC 4880: Is there a good reason to define a specific format for storing cryptographic data ?

Robert J. Hansen-3
Because RFC1991, which RFC2440 built on, which in turn ultimately became RFC4880, far predates XML, YAML, or JSON.  By now the RFC way of storing data has a huge amount of bureaucratic inertia.

On Dec 27, 2019 12:14 PM, Denis BEURIVE <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello,


I've just finished the implementation of RFC 4880 in Python (at least part of it).


And I am asking the question :


why is PGP not using a standard format to encode data ?


I mean : we could very well use XML, JSON or YAML to represent a PGP document.


Is there a good reason to define a specific format for storing cryptographic data ?


Regards,


Denis



_______________________________________________
Gnupg-doc mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-doc