Re: DISCUSS comments on publickeyfile-09

[Joseph Galbraith <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>]

Done.  Once the rest of the DISCUSSes are resolved,
I'll spin -10.

Thanks,

Joseph

Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
> That would be fine with me.  Please check for other uses of the "byte" word,
> though, too.
> 
> -Scott-
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joseph Galbraith [mailto:galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 3:35 PM
>> To: Bill Sommerfeld
>> Cc: ietf-ssh%netbsd.org@localhost; Scott Hollenbeck; Sam Hartman
>> Subject: Re: DISCUSS comments on publickeyfile-09
>>
>>> Section 3, second paragraph, and elsewhere: "MUST NOT be 
>> longer than 
>>> 72 bytes".  "bytes" is an imprecise term.  Do they really 
>> mean "8-bit 
>>> ASCII characters", octets, or are 9-bit bytes as 
>> implemented on older 
>>> hardware architectures also acceptable?
>>>
>>> Section 3.4 uses the term "characters" to describe a line length 
>>> limitation.
>>> Consistency would be good.
>> I agree that consistency would be good.
>>
>> We do specify that that header-values MUST be encoded in 
>> UTF8.  So changing to allow 72 characters could mean a 
>> significant growth in the number of bytes allowed on a line 
>> (*3 for Japanese text, for example.)
>>
>> 8-bit ASCII characters is close, except for those
>> UTF-8 header values.
>>
>> What if we specified "MUST NOT be longer than 72 8-bit bytes?"
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>>
>>
> 
>