Re: [openpgp] "OpenPGP Simple"

Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma@singpolyma.net> Mon, 16 March 2015 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <singpolyma@singpolyma.net>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91DE61A89B8 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 5TmPO_XtZCVI for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from singpolyma.net (singpolyma.net [184.107.182.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DD51A89AF for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by singpolyma.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 48DB8F2124; Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:12:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:12:13 -0500
From: Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma@singpolyma.net>
To: Jon Callas <jon@callas.org>
Message-ID: <20150316181213.GF2944@singpolyma-liberty>
References: <20150315175744.GG2978@singpolyma-liberty> <34C550CB-11A0-4D25-A5CF-78D265FE2435@callas.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mxv5cy4qt+RJ9ypb"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <34C550CB-11A0-4D25-A5CF-78D265FE2435@callas.org>
Jabber-ID: singpolyma@singpolyma.net
OpenPGP: id=CE519CDE; url=https://singpolyma.net/public.asc
X-URL: https://singpolyma.net
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/U7c1pnZa9wswCEUD6eXQnubCrIM>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [openpgp] "OpenPGP Simple"
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:12:16 -0000

>One of the things that I did once was to streamline an implementation my 
>receiving a number of things well, like old-style packets and lengths, but 
>only generating one thing (like five-byte lengths) on the grounds that if 
>you move to generating a simplified format, you can then start doing usage 
>surveys on when to phase out the old stuff.

Yes.  Last time I checked, gnupg < 2 (which is still the default on most of 
my systems) only generates old-style headers, whereas my implementations 
tend to only generate new-style.  Of course, usually one wants to consume 
both, if creating even a fairly-complete implementation, because of gnupg.

-- 
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
See <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted
edition right joseph