Re: [openpgp] [RFC4880bis PATCH] Clarify CRC-24 C example implementation

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Thu, 29 April 2021 04:01 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129C53A2DC4 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 21:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZzL_G7IN3gz4 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 21:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E46903A2DC1 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 21:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FW1yG6qtxz3R4; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 06:01:10 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1619668870; bh=IUZzj+s7Z422bJGk/pX7mznTzJWaVcPGD/xFGTmRfok=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=KPmPJEgbugQ+HoRXFk0t/w6amD+kDSH7kyBUCDwvOPpCu9gNmA66SSz2SPPPBx5c9 kWFrkFXrK7+h4xShF2xmnf1VEKOCzf/S6WkHAxMvpxQsX24KxyA0X4v9jeJ31yppxD eElYdWb8KN0xfF1rcZfuNUmm11fvB0XAibyhtr84=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5KLl4wDHHdHJ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 06:01:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 06:01:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7F6C86029A70; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0CC66B7C; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 00:01:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=C1ngel?= <angel@pgp.16bits.net>
cc: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <39e6b111f642a944214fd28d2fb53914b540c780.camel@16bits.net>
Message-ID: <367f66eb-85a6-953f-1f18-f193f5c5b87c@nohats.ca>
References: <20210317145508.136021-1-dkg@fifthhorseman.net> <871rcd7rdh.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <25e8d5713bcccb7b86e0f9ce75dafba80fb41530.camel@16bits.net> <87sg4t5fz8.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87k0q4rgml.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <60773433fb4dfae65a59c089c22e24c37e7913cf.camel@16bits.net> <87blbf5a6c.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <39e6b111f642a944214fd28d2fb53914b540c780.camel@16bits.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/DZY3GHQjdJ-ECxzWex0Zdj_KMMU>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] [RFC4880bis PATCH] Clarify CRC-24 C example implementation
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 04:01:17 -0000

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021, Ángel wrote:

> Subject: Re: [openpgp] [RFC4880bis PATCH] Clarify CRC-24 C example
>     implementation

This issue was also left with multiple competing texts, and so I would
like the WG to come up with 1 change for me to apply :)

Paul

> On 2021-03-19 at 13:24 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>
>> fwiw, i'm fine with either of these.  I note that the change i'd
>> originally proposed renamed the constant to CRC24_GENERATOR, to align
>> it with the term in the text ("poly" doesn't appear anywhere in the
>> text, but "generator" does).
>
> Right. I began from Hal's mail [1] Particularly the second option is
> his code just adding the comment. Thus I didn't want to add another
> change with the constant rename (something I'm fine with).
>
>
> Another potential point is if 0xffffff should have been changed to
> 0xffffffUL, as we are also changing the type to unsigned, but it looks
> redundant.
>
>
>> That said, we are pretty clearly in bike-shedding territory here.
>>
>> I have heard no one advocate for leaving the text unchanged, and i have
>> heard no one advocate for just silently amending the code to drop bit 25
>> from the constant.
>
> Indeed. Even if discussing which wording might be (slightly) better,
> let me explicitly state my support, in that I think all proposed
> changes on this thread represent an improvement over the existing text.
>
> Best regards
>
>
> 1-
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/UMLreIiKtKzXEnPT5ZbcDDjRQX0/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list
> openpgp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
>