compressed data generator

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

compressed data generator

Jim Ford
BouncyCastle V1.29 seems to generate large compressed data packets using
the old packet format and an indeterminate length.  Other
implementations I have looked at (McAfee, PGP V8, Veridis) all seem to
use the new format packet.  While the spec seems to say that using the
old packet format is legal it suggests that using the new format is
preferable.  Has there been any thought or are there any plans to move
to using the new format?

Regards,
Jim Ford
--


James J. Ford, CTO
Coviant Software Corporation

781.534.5164 direct line
781.347.4700 phone
781.347.4701 fax
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: compressed data generator

David Hook-4

Hadn't thought about it, will take a look.

Regards,

David

On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 17:04 -0400, Jim Ford wrote:

> BouncyCastle V1.29 seems to generate large compressed data packets using
> the old packet format and an indeterminate length.  Other
> implementations I have looked at (McAfee, PGP V8, Veridis) all seem to
> use the new format packet.  While the spec seems to say that using the
> old packet format is legal it suggests that using the new format is
> preferable.  Has there been any thought or are there any plans to move
> to using the new format?
>
> Regards,
> Jim Ford


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: compressed data generator

Hasnain Mujtaba
In reply to this post by Jim Ford
Some tools like GPG always use old-style indeterminate length encoding for compressed packets. The reason is interoperability with RFC 1991 compliant tools. RFC 1991 requires that compressed packets always use indeterminate length encoding. Perhaps that's way BC also uses indeterminate lengths for compressed packets.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: David Hook [mailto:[hidden email]]
        Sent: Sat 8/20/2005 9:16 PM
        To: Jim Ford
        Cc: [hidden email]
        Subject: Re: [dev-crypto] compressed data generator
       
       


        Hadn't thought about it, will take a look.
       
        Regards,
       
        David
       
        On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 17:04 -0400, Jim Ford wrote:
        > BouncyCastle V1.29 seems to generate large compressed data packets using
        > the old packet format and an indeterminate length.  Other
        > implementations I have looked at (McAfee, PGP V8, Veridis) all seem to
        > use the new format packet.  While the spec seems to say that using the
        > old packet format is legal it suggests that using the new format is
        > preferable.  Has there been any thought or are there any plans to move
        > to using the new format?
        >
        > Regards,
        > Jim Ford
       
       
       

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE: compressed data generator

David Hook-4

This is pretty much correct, and indeterminate-length will remain the
default behaviour. It does sound like it's now probably safe for us to
add the possibility to use the new packet formats in the same way they
are used with the other generators. I should be able to do this for the
next beta.

Regards,

David

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 09:53 -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote:

> Some tools like GPG always use old-style indeterminate length encoding for compressed packets. The reason is interoperability with RFC 1991 compliant tools. RFC 1991 requires that compressed packets always use indeterminate length encoding. Perhaps that's way BC also uses indeterminate lengths for compressed packets.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Hook [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sat 8/20/2005 9:16 PM
> To: Jim Ford
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [dev-crypto] compressed data generator
>
>
>
>
> Hadn't thought about it, will take a look.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 17:04 -0400, Jim Ford wrote:
> > BouncyCastle V1.29 seems to generate large compressed data packets using
> > the old packet format and an indeterminate length.  Other
> > implementations I have looked at (McAfee, PGP V8, Veridis) all seem to
> > use the new format packet.  While the spec seems to say that using the
> > old packet format is legal it suggests that using the new format is
> > preferable.  Has there been any thought or are there any plans to move
> > to using the new format?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jim Ford
>
>
>
>