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

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Thu, 18 March 2021 08:50 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
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 2E1353A253D for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 01:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=gnupg.org
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 5tiVhzKYGECQ for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 01:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (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 BAE643A2527 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 01:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnupg.org; s=20181017; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=tcRXI1R8V+2+uNncFaVGbccv7okmEIlt8MQhYHzldsA=; b=Ul8eEbvNeSHIeutGx40/aQa+aU eGFZ3okw9UAmSWjinc0CLdZtxgTFuZpmOh3EHkfHPgzp1t4FfdWb/UJDe6wXmaoxdVBCaEoYZMHqm lcEGRbmfKWAAbM7rZPdNyiwSSIrUyOY5XUmtrvP0et4MLKsfN+WmLIRNJHZd2lPuhMIM=;
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.89 #1 (Debian)) id 1lMoM4-0006vE-DI for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:50:08 +0100
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.92 #5 (Debian)) id 1lMoLK-0000IK-Js; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:49:22 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Cc: Ángel <angel@16bits.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
References: <20210317145508.136021-1-dkg@fifthhorseman.net> <871rcd7rdh.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <25e8d5713bcccb7b86e0f9ce75dafba80fb41530.camel@16bits.net> <87sg4t5fz8.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Organisation: GnuPG e.V.
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, Ángel <angel@16bits.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:49:22 +0100
In-Reply-To: <87sg4t5fz8.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> (Daniel Kahn Gillmor's message of "Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:54:19 -0400")
Message-ID: <87k0q4rgml.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=DSD_BECCA_Lacrosse_Hazardous_material_incident_bullion_E911_MITM_wir"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/Q1xbJc6HLe3Y8xrrAgFijuyS7fQ>
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 08:50:19 -0000

On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:54, Daniel Kahn Gillmor said:

> 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

This is a protocol, specification and not an implementation description.
Thus this should be considred as Pseudo code.

Anyway, I am in favor of applying Hal Finney's old suggestion (patch 39,
attached).


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner


-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.