On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:03:10 -0800
Jon Callas <joncallas=40icloud(_dot_)com(_at_)dmarc(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
Thus, saying (e.g.) that the range MUST be between 1K and 16K is a
bad idea; we even know now that 256K has in some cases an efficiency
advantage. You can say, MUST support 1K to 16K, SHOULD support up to
256K and MAY support larger sizes. There can also be a couple of
paragraphs to explain that there are good reasons neither to be very
small nor very large.
This sounds like a recipe to create multiple incompatible
implementations. That is certainly not what anyone should want.
My concern is someone saying something like, “Gosh, I’d like to have
OpenPGP AEAD encryption for S3 Objects, but I can’t ‘cause those go
up to 5TB.”
Sorry, I don't understand the comparison here.
We're talking about encryption chunk sizes, not sizes of total
encrypted content.
Nothing here's going to limit the size of the objects you can encrypt.
--
Hanno Böck
https://hboeck.de/
mail/jabber: hanno(_at_)hboeck(_dot_)de
GPG: FE73757FA60E4E21B937579FA5880072BBB51E42
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp