[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Encoding "secret key is hashed"

2001-08-24 09:47:36
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 11:09:35AM -0400, Michael Young wrote:
No, I don't want both changes.  Originally, I liked a version
change, but I've been convinced that its implications are a mess.

Well, associating all sorts of special meanings to the pre-S2K byte is
somewhat of a mess, too, isn't it?

IMHO, it would have been a lot cleaner to *always* use an S2K
specifier and then have a 0 symmetric algorithm value for "no
encryption". Then, I would have liked a length byte to precede the
public key data so that you can just skip it entirely without having
to parse all of the MPI's. Additionally, the differences between the
different session key packets could have been reduced and aligned to
be similiar to the encrypted data packet so that the same header
fields are aligned at the same offsets for all packet types and only
thes differing fields are at different offsets.

*phew*. Excuse the rant. I have just been through implementation of a
key parser and will calm down any minute now.


        Ingo Luetkebohle / ingo(_at_)blank(_dot_)pages(_dot_)de / Student of 
| Cross-Platform OpenPGP:
| Fargonauten.DE sysadmin; Gimp Registry maintainer;
| FP: 3187 4DEC 47E6 1B1E 6F4F  57D4 CD90 C164 34AD CE5B

Attachment: pgpcSRhqoascu.pgp
Description: PGP signature