From: assar@pdc.kth.se
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:22:56 -0800 (PST)
To: Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>
Subject: Re: pgp3
In-Reply-To: <199611131217.NAA19213@internal-mail.systemics.com>
Message-ID: <5lohh1bk5b.fsf@assaris.sics.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com> writes:
> > > 1991  I   D. Atkins, W. Stallings, P. Zimmermann, "PGP Message Exchange
> > >            Formats", 08/16/1996. (Pages=21) (Format=.txt)
> 
> Hmm - I don't know I managed to make this post - I had started writing
> a reply, but exited my mailer, and for some reason it decided to send a
> cut down version of the unfinished mail anyway ...
> 
> > Nope. This RFC is merely a rehash of the pgformat.doc file in the PGP
> > 2.6.? distribution. I'm doing an independent implementation of the PGP

There are some parts of pgformat.doc that are not included in RFC1991,
especially the packets on the key ring.

> > 2.6 message formats, and found this document unclear in a few spots. For
> > example, can anyone else figure out the weird CFB variant mode from this
> > document? I used a debugger on the PGP code to help me figure it out.

That took quite some time for me to figure out...

> Exactly - I spent ages on the same thing.  Then there's the problem that
> packet length headers must be specific lengths for various types (eg.
> key certificates must have a 2 byte length, even if only one is required).

As far as I remember:
CTB_PUBLIC_KEY_CERTIFICATE and CTB_SIGNATURE are always 2 bytes
CTB_KEYRING_TRUST and CTB_USER_ID are always 1 byte

> information available?  I think we need a forum to discuss PGP development
> issues - I would be happy to set one up if there was interest.

Sounds like a good idea

/assar