Modifications of 1991 necessary?

[lutz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lutz Donnerhacke)]

* Jon Callas wrote:
>At 08:22 AM 2/18/98 GMT, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>   * Jon Callas wrote:
>   >Personally, I like the old form of packet headers, as they simply denote a
>   >1, 2, or 4-octet length, with no funny stuff. The "new" ones, though, are
>   >useful for doing streaming. 
>   
>   But the old ones does not contain all packet types (esp. CTB_SUBKEY,
>   CTB_SECRET_SUBKEY)
>
>Sure it does. The subkey packet is 14, and the secret subkey is 7. Both of
>these fit within a 4-bit field.

This modification was not discussed and is not yet implemented in the
refernce implementation. I doubt it to be useful. Subkeys can use packet
version four and must not destroy existing standards in use.

>   >There is a difference, in that the old headers only have 4 bits of opcode
>   >for packet types. However, since we've eliminated the comment packet, we
>   >fit into 4 bits. If we wanted room, we could always kill the marker packet
>   
>   You did not eliminate the comment packet. It's in use! Please to not outlaw
>   existing implemetations.
>   
>Uh oh. We're going to have to have a discussion of this. I'll fork it off
>to another thread.

Thnx