Derek Atkins <derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com> writes:
So I believe it is legal to have the any of your suggested combinations, as
well as multiple compressed packets, IFF you use the RFC2440 partial-packet
length encodings instead of the RFC1991 indeterminate length encoding.
I'm not sure offhand what the various implementations allow. ISTR that the
PGP 5/6/7/8 parser will happily accept this construction.
Question to the audience: Do we need any changes to the text to make this
more clear?
I would like to see the RFC strongly discourage arbitrary jumbling and nesting
of assorted packet types in favour of a single, clean canonical encoding. So
instead of:
ENCRYPTED( COMPRESS, COMPRESSED, COMPRESSED )
or somesuch there should just be a straightforward:
ENCRYPTED( COMPRESS )
Explicitly allowing complex jumbles of packets seems to be just asking for
trouble/interop problems, particularly when there hasn't been any strong need
for them in the first 10 years or so of PGP's existence.
Peter.