packet type 18 and 19

[Werner Koch]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Ingo Luetkebohle wrote:

> GnuPG's g10/packet.h defines packet types 18 and 19 to apparently the
> same thing as types 15 and 16, respectively, in RFC 2440bis. What is
> the reasoning behind that? Is the packet internal format the same as
> the one described for 15 and 16 in 2440bis?

It seems that there is an error in
draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-02.txt.

IIRC, PGP suggested the use of 15 and 16 but we later decided to use
18 and 19.  Becuase Hal and I did some tests on the new MDC format,
I am pretty sure that we use 18 + 19.

Jon, can you please correct this.

> P.S. type 15 is not used at all in GnuPG, it seems, but type 16 is
> defined as "old comment" -- why?

I can't remember right now, but there was a reason that we don't use
them.  16 was used in an early draft to denote a comment packet.

  Werner
  

-- 
Werner Koch        Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur
g10 Code           et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est.
Privacy Solutions                                        -- Augustinus