Re: [openpgp] "OpenPGP Simple"

One of the thing I really hate in asinine one is the way they managed to take a bunch of good ideas and trash them.... 

Yes one integer format that expands as needed would be the way to go IFF this is reopened.

Sent from my difference engine

> On Mar 23, 2015, at 14:52, ianG <iang@iang.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 17/03/2015 02:10 am, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>> David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com> writes:
>>>> On Mar 16, 2015, at 5:15 PM, David Leon Gil <coruus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Partial lengths are really a nuisance to parse.
>>> 
>>> No argument there...
>> 
>> The whole bizarro sort-of-fixed-point encoding of lengths is a pain (this is a
>> cue for Jon to do his "every bit is sacred" dance).  If the format is revised,
>> there should be only two lengths, a 16-bit one for almost everything (keyring
>> data, signatures, etc), and a 32-bit one for payloads and partial lengths that
>> are going to exceed 16-bit lengths.
> 
> 
> Crazy * 2 :)
> 
> One int is good enough for anyone.  Just use an expanding 7 bit form, where the hi bit says, grab the following byte.
> 
> 
>> Length-decoding shouldn't be any more
>> complicated than:
>> 
>> read tag;
>> if( tag & length_32_flag )
>>   length = read32();
>> else
>>   length = read16();
>> 
>> While I'm venting, shall I get started on the MDC kludge?
> 
> 
> Simplify!  Simplify!
> 
> 
> iang
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> openpgp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp