[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tighter MPI spec

To: Jon Callas <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Tighter MPI spec
From: Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:21:47 +0100
Cc: Rick van Rein <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf-openpgp@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <> (Jon Callas's message of "Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:12:04 -0800")
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <> <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@xxxxxxxxxxxx

* Jon Callas:

> This language has been sitting in 2440 and followons since '97. No one 
> has ever had a problem implementing it, no one has had an 
> interoperability issue with bignums. Not PGP, nor GnuPG, nor Hushmail, 
> nor Cryptix, nor Forum, nor Bouncy Castle, nor anyone else.

Not true.  GnuPG had a bug in MPI handling because it followed the
language in RFC 2440 too verbatim. 8-)

(You added a hint to 2440bis a few years ago, so others hopefully
won't make the same mistake.)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Tighter MPI spec
  - From: Jon Callas

References:
- Tighter MPI spec (and on keychains)
  - From: Rick van Rein
- Re: Tighter MPI spec (and on keychains)
  - From: Jon Callas
- Re: Tighter MPI spec
  - From: Rick van Rein
- Re: Tighter MPI spec
  - From: Jon Callas

Prev by Date: Re: More questions and comments on rfc2440bis-12
Next by Date: OpenPGP Agenda for IETF-62
Previous by thread: Re: Tighter MPI spec
Next by thread: Re: Tighter MPI spec
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread