-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 04:39:26PM -0400, Michael Young wrote:
Come to think, your suggestion of using a compressed data packet to
encapsulate could be useful here as well:
ENCRYPTED(COMPRESSED(LITERAL+LITERAL)).
Yes, it's pretty clear that this is legal. The grammar doesn't
cover the contents of compressed packets, so the language in
section 5.6 would seem to govern. (Curiously, that section
suggests that COMPRESSED packets might live directly in
signatures, which is what kicked off this whole discussion.)
Well, I agree with your end result, but I'm not quite sure I agree
with the path you took to get there. In fact, the grammar *does*
cover the contents of compressed and encrypted packets:
In addition, decrypting a Symmetrically Encrypted Data Packet or a
Symmetrically Encrypted Integrity Protected Data Packet as well as
decompressing a Compressed Data packet must yield a valid OpenPGP
Message.
Thus, COMPRESSED(LITERAL+LITERAL) is valid only if LITERAL+LITERAL is
valid.
So what this all comes down to is that 5.6 says that
COMPRESSED(LITERAL+LITERAL) is a valid construction. 10.2 says that
LITERAL+LITERAL isn't a valid construction. Conflict: they can't both
be right. Repeat as needed for section 5.7 and 5.13 - the problem is
identical.
This is why I have been suggesting a minor change to 10.2 to make it
match 5.6, 5.7 and 5.13:
The current draft says:
Literal Message :- Literal Data Packet.
I'd like to change that to:
Literal Message :- Literal Data Packet |
Literal Message, Literal Data Packet.
The draft, as it stands now, is internally inconsistent. I'd like to
fix that.
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3rc2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Key available at http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc
iEYEARECAAYFAj8sLzEACgkQ4mZch0nhy8nF2ACcCGxT6zaF+RWSKIy4eW51J5Q/
WssAoMRmxE8K+gr9f77ZN/5RgqV/9HwD
=riai
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----