On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Ian Grigg wrote:
Hal Finney wrote:
Maybe a more constructive approach is to ask whether the description
in the new draft is clear and useful. The draft is lengthy, yes,
but not very much of it is occupied discussing packet length headers,
and perhaps that portion could be made more concise. We could include
some code samples if this is an area where people are afraid of the
implementation difficulty.
Adding code fragments is a good idea. Code does not lie where text can
not help but spread mistruths.
Psuedo code or C or even Java would be very useful. We may even be able
to make this easier by adopting the convention that comments on the
draft, within this mailgroup, include code fragments to explain their
points, as Adam did earlier. Then, the editors can simply cut and past.
Has the BXA ruled on itef drafts? Snuffle is smaller than many code
fragments, but (barring a further ruling) still cannot be posted on the
internet. I have lots of concise working examples of how PGP does things,
from my implementations, but will we run into the "crypto is a munition"
problem if the draft contains the wrong type of example?
--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---