I wrote a point-by-point reply and decided that that’s not productive. I’m
going to try to cut to the chase on this, so forgive me if I have dodged an
important point. I’m happy to come back to it later.
Like some interim replies, particularly Bart Butler, I thought we had a rough
consensus and that it was approximately:
* MUST support 16KB chunks.
* SHOULD support 256K chunks, as these are common (Protonmail).
* MAY support larger up to the present very large size.
* MAY reject or error out on chunks larger than 16KB, but repeating ourselves,
SHOULD support 256K.
I think it’s also reasonable to just simplify it by making be MUST support up
to 256K. I don’t like getting rid of the SHOULD clause, thus making it be
either 16K or off in squishy land, but I wouldn’t wring my wrists, I’d merely
be a bit unhappy.
I could also get behind a hard limit of 2^30 on the grounds that that’s what we
had for partial body lengths, but I understand the comment that there are
things like multi-terabyte S3 buckets and out and out forbidding those to be
single-chunk is a bit churlish, but only a bit.
If we really want to tie a bow around everything, then define some notation or
other marker so that an implementation can mark in a key what the max chunk
size is.
How’s that?
Now with some other points, I found myself going especially Socratic because
the missives that you and Justus wrote weren’t *actionable*. When I was editor,
a thing I would say from time to time is at about 90% of the time someone would
say, “Please change X to Y for reason Z” it would be a no-brainer to do so.
Most of the remaining 10% would end up with some reasonable debate than then an
answer. But if someone said, “I think X is wrong” then 90% of the time nothing
would happen because there’s nothing actionable there, meaning that there’s no
clear point for the editor to be doing. All of these standards are at some
level compromises and there’s an old aphorism that the best compromise is one
where everyone is equally unhappy.
In my particular case, I thought I mostly agreed with where you wanted to go,
but I completely disagreed with some of your premises, and disagreed with some
of the reasoning that got us to the conclusion I agreed with. That’s why I was
being so Socratic. I thought before the missives today that we had a rough
consensus and that I agreed with y’all at some basic level. Then I thought we
really disagreed, and I gradually realized that we agree on the destination,
but not on the path of how to get there.
If I may give some advice, it is better to make sure that your requests are
actionable. If they’re not, then you’re less likely to get what you want, if
for no other reason than the rest of us don’t know what you want, we’re having
to guess. The basic argument that you were making — that implementations such
as yours need tight constraints — is one we all can get behind. The other side
here — they want to do something kinda wacky (like terabyte chunks) — can be
pushed off into the land of MAYs.
Okay, anyway.
How’s that proposal I wrote above? Does it work for you? Does it need tweaks?
Jon
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp