Re: [openpgp] v5 in the crypto-refresh draft

[Peter Pentchev <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 11:33:54AM +0000, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Peter Pentchev <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> >Obviously not speaking for any of the people who actually work on this, but
> >you need to keep in mind that the time field is defined as an *unsigned* 32-
> >bit number, so we'll have another 68 years after the year 2038 to take care
> >of that.
> 
> Except that time_t is signed so it's going to cause breakage if you just
> assign a 32-bit OpenPGP time to a 32-bit time_t.  Making it 64 bits would both
> prevent this and signal to 32-bit time_t users that they need to take special
> care with time values.

Well, if any implementation still uses a signed 32-bit time_t C type in
the year 2038, it will not be able to do anything anyway. ICBW, but is
the point of the standard not to define the wire format, and not
implementation-specific details? An unsigned 32-bit value for the wire
format should be fine for this century.

But maybe I'll just shut up and let the people who have already
discussed modifications to the standard (like you, so yeah, sorry)
say whether anybody has ever raised this before and whether it has been
discussed.

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev  [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]
PGP key:        http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115  C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13