Re: Packets sequences

[David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 10:30:58PM +1300, Peter Gutmann wrote:

> I would like to see the RFC strongly discourage arbitrary jumbling
> and nesting of assorted packet types in favour of a single, clean
> canonical encoding.  So instead of:
> 
>   ENCRYPTED( COMPRESS, COMPRESSED, COMPRESSED )
> 
> or somesuch there should just be a straightforward:
> 
>   ENCRYPTED( COMPRESS )
> 
> Explicitly allowing complex jumbles of packets seems to be just
> asking for trouble/interop problems, particularly when there hasn't
> been any strong need for them in the first 10 years or so of PGP's
> existence.

I think this is a good idea.  I'm actually quite happy with the
grammar given in bis-09.  It's the same as the 2440 grammar with the
single change that you can have a run of literal packets.

Any implementation is of course free to be more liberal in what it
accepts, but I also see no need to explicitly allow arbitrary jumbling
and nesting especially since nobody has posted a reason why such
constructions are useful.

David