Re: Diffs for next draft

[Jon Callas <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>The correct solution would be to introduce a version 5 of the secret
>>key packet - this is a major change as we may also want to also
>>introduce a v5 public key packet for symmetry reasons.  I guess this
>>will break a lot of code.
>>
>>The hackish solution is to define a new S2K type identical to type 3
>>(iterated and salted) which would then trigger the use of the new
>>SHA-1 checksum.  It should be made clear that this S2K type is only to
>>be used for the protection of the secret key and not for conventional
>>encryption.
>>
>>I don't like any of these solutions but the latter one is easier to
>>implement. Any other ideas?

I think an S2K that includes a hash is only mildly hackish, myself. I'd
support this. I'd even support an additional one that is merely salted with
a hash.

	Jon