packet type 18 and 19
wk at gnupg.org
Mon Apr 2 09:43:12 CEST 2001
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
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 Koch Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur
g10 Code et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est.
Privacy Solutions -- Augustinus
More information about the Gnupg-devel