[Top] [All Lists]

old MDC discussions

1999-04-22 17:49:10

The old discussions, should anyone wish to review them, can be found
by starting at the following links in sequence:

From msg01771.html particularly, we have a description of the same
proposal that was made recently, and Jon proposing _not_ reserving
explicit packet IDs for it as requested in a message a few previous.

  Adam Back:

   I didn't suggest that MDCs go into 1.0 in the last round.  What I
   suggested was that the following be verified:
        that when processing a message containing signatures a 1.0
        implementation MUST continue to emit plaintext (ie fail
        gracefully) in the presence of signature algorithms it does
        not recognise.
   this readily allows adding MDCs or other signature algorithms in
   version 1.1, and ensures backwards compatibility is possible.
Sure, but I don't think we need to add anything. If someone writes an
implementation that (for instance) bus errors when it receives an algorithm
encrypted with AES (which I pick because we all know it's going to go in,
but it isn't there now), then the implementation is clearly broken. 

Signatures are different because there's a meaningful thing to do -- emit
plaintext, and shrug over the sig -- which is a little different than the
crypto, or compression, or whatever. But nonetheless, there are many
failure and partial failure conditions, and an implementation that doesn't
fail gracefully is broken.

This spec isn't a how-to-program manual, it's a format specification. By
necessity it tells you a lot of what to do with the format, but there's a
lot that this document can't tell an implementor.


and some even older discussions:

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U(_at_){$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • old MDC discussions, Adam Back <=