IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Thu, 18 March 2021 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
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 B5F663A1CB3 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 20:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.306
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.306 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, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.b=/4wJQEGo; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fifthhorseman.net header.b=QWBv6CEh
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 Yu3NugLR387w for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 20:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from che.mayfirst.org (unknown [162.247.75.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 426373A1CAF for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 20:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019; t=1616036923; h=from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=dMAz7r6MM02EdiWNe6CIxWNnojw6uj0C7SVsQp5QsbM=; b=/4wJQEGoZtNGCfIDPcUDSi2LHJXD+3WbC+4yDTjYAkAvhREN2tELsqVhh99Cnvg5qv1pw 8bUkgwmb+EiRtzaCQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fifthhorseman.net; i=@fifthhorseman.net; q=dns/txt; s=2019rsa; t=1616036923; h=from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type : from; bh=dMAz7r6MM02EdiWNe6CIxWNnojw6uj0C7SVsQp5QsbM=; b=QWBv6CEhElgdiBui+XJwLqTRy4W9i4nN6h+3Vze0fiEcXJ9TS0+l5zOmx20bGI0hKjBTW 5mYOm/E8mWcGEWfGNs9KKPTh9/ImVgPbsW69ZFHgx1TqMFvWLUix11OZDC9Vnh6lo4jZXHN PuO1NNzBToy3zuKvd9GT1h3m8rOpab4PI4JnbYWlBVS68kd/tftWCnUIch4MNnPrIgVErSR HOy/jzDGz6ZTzv87sWbUZ7gg61zgr/6FznHHM7fYbkhbiN6oP8DjUVk1vJVQ+/QVB48aqhw 1gIoVs9jfZlTa/I2KtdOGAP5/c0uOHYexzKhC0avOO217/hj41h8HtPyU7KQ==
Received: from fifthhorseman.net (lair.fifthhorseman.net [108.58.6.98]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 768F7F9A6; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:08:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AE6F12045F; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:54:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
To: Ángel <angel@16bits.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <25e8d5713bcccb7b86e0f9ce75dafba80fb41530.camel@16bits.net>
References: <20210317145508.136021-1-dkg@fifthhorseman.net> <871rcd7rdh.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <25e8d5713bcccb7b86e0f9ce75dafba80fb41530.camel@16bits.net>
Autocrypt: addr=dkg@fifthhorseman.net; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mDMEX+i03xYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdACA4xvL/xI5dHedcnkfViyq84doe8zFRid9jW7CC9XBiI0QQf FgoAgwWCX+i03wWJBZ+mAAMLCQcJEOCS6zpcoQ26RxQAAAAAAB4AIHNhbHRAbm90YXRpb25zLnNl cXVvaWEtcGdwLm9yZ/tr8E9NA10HvcAVlSxnox6z62KXCInWjZaiBIlgX6O5AxUKCAKbAQIeARYh BMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AADZHQD/Zx9nc3N2kj13AUsKMr/7zekBtgfSIGB3hRCU74Su G44A/34Yp6IAkndewLxb1WdRSokycnaCVyrk0nb4imeAYyoPtBc8ZGtnQGZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4u bmV0PojRBBMWCgCDBYJf6LTfBYkFn6YAAwsJBwkQ4JLrOlyhDbpHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3Rh dGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnL0Gwxvypz2tu1IPG+yu1zPjkiZwpscsitwrVvzN3bbADFQoI ApsBAh4BFiEEwp+KDAHzXjTYFqpc4JLrOlyhDboAAPkXAP0Z29z7jW+YzLzPTQML4EQLMbkHOfU4 +s+ki81Czt0WqgD/SJ8RyrqDCtEP8+E4ZSR01ysKqh+MUAsTaJlzZjehiQ24MwRf6LTfFgkrBgEE AdpHDwEBB0DkKHOW2kmqfAK461+acQ49gc2Z6VoXMChRqobGP0ubb4kBiAQYFgoBOgWCX+i03wWJ BZ+mAAkQ4JLrOlyhDbpHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3Jnfvo+ nHoxDwaLaJD8XZuXiaqBNZtIGXIypF1udBBRoc0CmwICHgG+oAQZFgoAbwWCX+i03wkQPp1xc3He VlxHFAAAAAAAHgAgc2FsdEBub3RhdGlvbnMuc2VxdW9pYS1wZ3Aub3JnaheiqE7Pfi3Atb3GGTw+ jFcBGOaobgzEJrhEuFpXREEWIQQttUkcnfDcj0MoY88+nXFzcd5WXAAAvrsBAIJ5sBg8Udocv25N stN/zWOiYpnjjvOjVMLH4fV3pWE1AP9T6hzHz7hRnAA8d01vqoxOlQ3O6cb/kFYAjqx3oMXSBhYh BMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AADX7gD/b83VObe14xrNP8xcltRrBZF5OE1rQSPkMNy+eWpk eCwA/1hxiS8ZxL5/elNjXiWuHXEvUGnRoVj745Vl48sZPVYMuDgEX+i03xIKKwYBBAGXVQEFAQEH QIGex1WZbH6xhUBve5mblScGYU+Y8QJOomXH+rr5tMsMAwEICYjJBBgWCgB7BYJf6LTfBYkFn6YA CRDgkus6XKENukcUAAAAAAAeACBzYWx0QG5vdGF0aW9ucy5zZXF1b2lhLXBncC5vcmcEAx9vTD3b J0SXkhvcRcCr6uIDJwic3KFKxkH1m4QW0QKbDAIeARYhBMKfigwB81402BaqXOCS6zpcoQ26AAAX mwD8CWmukxwskU82RZLMk5fm1wCgMB5z8dA50KLw3rgsCykBAKg1w/Y7XpBS3SlXEegIg1K1e6dR fRxL7Z37WZXoH8AH
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:54:19 -0400
Message-ID: <87sg4t5fz8.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/FPcISPykEI2bqZlXhlNYfUa410g>
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, 18 Mar 2021 03:08:48 -0000

On Thu 2021-03-18 02:33:54 +0100, Ángel wrote:
> What about using, instead of the 'long' type, which may mean quite
> dfferent things, the uint_least32_t type defined in ISO C 7.18 ?

i'd be fine with either one.  afaict, "unsigned long" is always at least
at least a 32-bit unsigned integer, and is more typical idiomatic C, but
if the WG prefers uint_least32_t i would not object.  (technically the
CRC-24 accumulator just needs 25 bits -- one to test for overflow -- but
we don't need to cut it so fine :P)

  --dkg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email