Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-openpgp-formats-02.txt

[Werner Koch <wk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

tzeruch@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

> jump to V4.  Otherwise you create a PGP 2.6.2-plus implicit within OpenPGP
> and I think this is a bad idea.  When there is a V3 way of doing things,
> it should meet the old RFC completely since the single reason to do things
> that way is to be backward compatible.  Otherwise things should be done

I did this for GNUPG because when I started, I didn't know any 
description of PGP 5 packet formats so I had to to use RFC1991
with only one extension (partial header length); this implementation
is pretty compliant to RFC1991, due to the fact that this rfc is not
specific in some parts :-)

This isn't a perfect solution and so I plan to migrate to v4 as soon
as OpenPGP is stable (actually I can already process v4 packets).


Werner