Bill Stewart wrote:
We should probably mark Subpacket Type 10 as "reserved" or something.
Spot on, Bill. I was thinking along these lines today.
Avoidance of any name means that there is no possibility of endorsement
or future confusion along those lines. Marking it as an RFU leaves PGP
Inc free to use it within their proprietary client sites, until they are
ready to propose this method as general and successful enough to be
admitted to the standard.
And as an experimental system, the right thing to do is to mark out the
space, and wait for PGP Inc to get back to us with a case. As an
informational RFC or a proposed extension, this is fine. It also does
more merit to the question, as it is far more complex than one bit or
field can cope with.
Seems like a win for everbody, no? If we are agreed that type 10 is
marked as reserved for future use, then we can move ahead.
Figuring out the semantics of the Critical Bit is going to be more complex.
I think I've made my case that this is a "bad thing" at this stage, I'll
see what others say.
--
iang systemics.com
FP: 1189 4417 F202 5DBD 5DF3 4FCD 3685 FDDE on pgp.com