Re: [openpgp] "OpenPGP Simple"

[David Shaw <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 16, 2015, at 10:10 PM, Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> David Shaw <[e-mail]> writes:
>> On Mar 16, 2015, at 5:15 PM, David Leon Gil <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Partial lengths are really a nuisance to parse.
>> 
>> No argument there...
> 
> The whole bizarro sort-of-fixed-point encoding of lengths is a pain (this is a
> cue for Jon to do his "every bit is sacred" dance).  If the format is revised,
> there should be only two lengths, a 16-bit one for almost everything (keyring
> data, signatures, etc), and a 32-bit one for payloads and partial lengths that
> are going to exceed 16-bit lengths.  Length-decoding shouldn't be any more
> complicated than:
> 
> read tag;
> if( tag & length_32_flag )
>  length = read32();
> else
>  length = read16();

I'm fine with that, but I do want to keep the concept of partial lengths, as you did above.  People do encrypt things without knowing how large they are ahead of time.  I'm fine with a restriction (which already exists today) that only payloads can use partial lengths.

David