Re: bis-16 comments

[David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:52:30PM -0700, Jon Callas wrote:

> >In section 9.3. Compression Algorithms, suggest adding:
> >
> >    Algorithm 0, "uncompressed," may only be used to denote a
> >    preference for uncompressed data in the preferred compression
> >    algorithms subpacket (section 5.2.3.9). Implementations MUST NOT
> >    use uncompressed in Compressed Data Packets.
> >
> >(We had the same problem with using cipher algorithm 0 in encrypted
> >data packets, and made that MUST NOT as well)
> >
> 
> I want to quibble over this one.
> 
> The reason we don't allow 0 in encrypted packets is because we don't  
> want to have "encrypted" data. It's a security reason. There's no  
> security reason here. While it's perhaps stupid to make a compressed  
> packet that has no compression (you could just have a literal  
> packet), there is no *security* reason to object to it.
> 
> Also, there's no particular code reason to object to it, either; you  
> have to handle the case, and rather than error out, why not just  
> proceed?

You're right.  It's better left out.

David