Re: Encoding of "features" subpacket

At 11:51 PM -0400 8/23/01, Michael Young wrote:
> At first, I accepted the explanation in the current draft, that this act like
> other "preferences".  But the only preferences encoded that way are
> algorithms lists; but algorithms are already encoded as bytes, and in
> the lists, order matters.  Features feel more like the keyserver or key
> flags, which are bit-encoded.
Good point. Anyone else want to weigh in? I'm now leaning to changing it.

        Jon