Subject: Subpacket clarification

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:14:35 -0500

In section 5.2.4.1. Subpacket Hints:

   An implementation SHOULD put the two mandatory subpackets, creation
   time and issuer, as the first subpackets in the subpacket list,
   simply to make it easier for the implementer to find them.

Both PGP and GnuPG put the creation time in the hashed area, and the
issuer in the unhashed area, and the most recent draft was revised to
match this reality.  Given that, perhaps it would be good to modify
the phrase slightly with "... as the first subpackets in their
respective subpacket lists..."

David

---

From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:25:12 -0500

> respective subpacket lists..."

Just so I understand... given that a valid OpenPGP message can have 
these packets anywhere in the list, how is it easier for a conformant 
implementation to find them? Faster... now that I could understand. But 
it would seem that any valid OpenPGP implementation will have to 
implement the complete locating algorithm anyway. What is it that I'm 
missing?

Cheers,
-J

-- 
"They accused us of suppressing freedom of expression.
This was a lie and we could not let them publish it."
-- Nelba Blandon, Nicaraguan Interior Ministry Director of Censorship

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:15:13 -0500

> implement the complete locating algorithm anyway. What is it that I'm 

I've always interpreted "easier" as "faster" in that sentence.

David

---

From: Jeroen van Gelderen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:47:28 -0500

> I've always interpreted "easier" as "faster" in that sentence.

Thanks. It might be good to explicitly say so. In fact, "easier for the 
implementor" cannot logically apply to the resource requirements of a 
run. The implementor has to do a fixed amount of work to implement the 
complete and correct algorithm, regardless of where the packets are 
generally placed.

You could say "easier for the implementation" of course:

   An implementation SHOULD put the two mandatory subpackets, creation
   time and issuer, as the first subpackets in the subpacket list,
   simply to make it easier for the implementation to find them.

This is still easy to misread for those not-so-well-versed in English. 
How about:

   An implementation SHOULD put the two mandatory subpackets, creation
   time and issuer, as the first subpackets in the subpacket list,
   simply to make it less costly -on average- for the implementation
   to find them.

Now come up with some better wording...

Cheers,
-J
-- 
Jeroen C. van Gelderen - [email-masked]

"They accused us of suppressing freedom of expression.
This was a lie and we could not let them publish it."
   -- Nelba Blandon,
      Nicaraguan Interior Ministry Director of Censorship

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:29:40 -0800

On 3/13/03 11:15 AM, "David Shaw" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 

The subpacket areas are intended to be unordered. I think specifying
ordering is a bad idea, as you have to solve the general case, anyway.
OpenPGP needs simplification, not more arcane rules.

    Jon

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:39:37 -0500

> OpenPGP needs simplification, not more arcane rules.

I'd be quite content to see that sentence go away altogether.

David

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:13:04 -0800

> I'd be quite content to see that sentence go away altogether.

It's gone.

    Jon