[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Draft comments

1997-11-24 07:38:58
* Jon Callas wrote:
I've already said my part on why I think armour is *not* primarily for
backwards compatibility. The PART X headers are not a new header, though.
They are an old header. I don't mind losing them, or deprecating them.

No. they are new.

I meant that new combined header that has a begin-message and the hash
announcement. I think that as long as the "Hash:" header line can have
multiple hashes there (or it is legal to have multiple hash headers), then
we don't need this, and it simplifies to just remove it.

Hash headers can contain multiple values. They are specified as:
  <HASH> ::= 'Hash:' <WS> <HASHS> <CRLF>
  <HASHS> ::= <HASHVAL> | <HASHVAL> ',' <WS> <HASHS>
  <HASHVAL> ::= 'SHA1' | 'MD5' | 'MD2' | 'RIPEM160'

Btw: <WS> ::= <LWS> | <CRLF> <LWS> | <WS><WS>

When PGP 2.6 was created, the version number of the packets was bumped from
2 to 3, but nothing else was changed. It's really only there so you can

That's not true. V2 has a different padding for encrypted session keys and
digests than V3. So V2 and V3 are totally incompatible. It's absolutly
necessary to respond to an V2 key using the old format.

you send me a compressed message, I can't read it." This is so that a
minimal implementation -- one that does not have compression (remember, the
MUST algorithm for compression is uncompressed) -- can advertise that it
doesn't have compression. 

So the default has to be changed to 'prefered = no compression'.