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

Re: armour pierced with PGP 8 arrow



Ian Grigg wrote:
> 
> Peter Gutmann wrote:

> > Is it really a line-length issue, or something else like the presence of the
> > second colon in the line for something that's scanning for <string>:<string>?

Peter brought up the issue of the additional
": " separators and I opined that the draft
should be clearer on this issue.

On reflection, I think it should not be permitted.

The reason for this is that when you combine
it with the line slicing behaviour, then some
games are possible:

Version: 1.0.0 non-commercial, upgrade to Version: 2.0.0-commercial


Could result in an embarressing split.  Now, that's
a superficial and ignorable result, and only presented
for the sake of showing what might happen.

I can see no good reason to leave multiple separators
as permitted in the ID, so I'd suggest adding a simple
restriction such as "Only one separator is permitted."



As another observation, the use of the term "Armour
Headers" appears overloaded.  Could this be clarified
by changing the current usage into:

   Armour Headers:  -----.*PGP.*-----
   Optional Headers:  Version: ////

Or even Comment Headers, or Optional Armour Headers,
or Optional Comments?


iang