Justus Winter <justuswinter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 4:32 PM Derek Atkins <derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Why not just have multiple literal packets inside the encryption? I.e.:
ENC{ Lit1{realData} | Lit2{pad} }
Because that is not a well-formed OpenPGP message.
Neither is anything else you are currently proposing. If you're going
to extend the spec to add a new packet type you might as well extend the
spec to allow this, which is easier. And honestly many parsers (at
least the parser I wrote in 1995 which AFAIK is still in use by at least
one implementation) will actually parse this structure properly.
Cheers,
Justus
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp