-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA384 On 12/17/2014 18:22, Ian Goldberg wrote: > Hmm. That certainly isn't the *intent*. I don't see in the spec > where it allows fragments to be fragmented. Messages can be > fragmented, but fragments aren't messages--they're fragments of > messages.
right. > Can you point to where the spec misled you or was unclear? I'd > certainly like to fix that. Re-reading it turns out the spec is pretty clear, and talks about 'messages, either fragmented or unfragmented', in the fragmentation section about 'fragments'. It wouldn't hurt too much to explicitly state 'messages can be fragmented, fragments can't - they aren't messages' in the fragmentation section. sorry for the noise (and my parser isn't recursive anymore since this morning), hannes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCQAGBQJUkgsuAAoJELyJZYjffCjucokP/RLvivg+l7U3QCHjozL7159I 2lKnj53MzQNrOzvMWPLcOi9XdG6plEVLv5n1HSNmlmGcL08SztQLVLVpDm9ou9Fz xSbNHshXbHFOKx3Mfqi0CeYonHwpKhtLVduRY0bRZH0BK8zBpeFgTbYkq2ZSLB5K Acg3SiJW5UCVvANDMgvyA5j3cWIPJjXgarSSQMzDSzyEC5mDKEA5Miurs3dUTNj/ HSlZ2gGig0D1Ukw3pp/9fCZSvbLqdzWtzM2yEXz2jIOmbSQ/hRTHWJlI+HOx6+0O nLb4HuQ28ca7eJ3HeHwL/vXksqVRtT6B0hK5KHYB5F9kVa2DWWl/+Sv8a4xtxj18 AbYFSrVa4laCzLDZvAyFm5fSmNyN1axDDC4etXITtmX8X+uMJjd3ocwxhPRnmeMX s+NOYh3GNaUG6aVD2zr7U7ySoBnFTUADhFuvdndReFA1PNnQ4USCDbxVMEG2etLj eka2xjEK4ugdmjgCvmnv7PhEzb5JtwJE9RYLLwQ/N5gKW/Fha5Eo2co4niuWcWwB taCokfBZj0KJzR5z+CL2KstBHO39yeCaUdP6mYaDx2vddjwpOjALWa18Ml66vna/ nHG5QplarG5REUT3fnM9Krefil9Nf1dxssePMz1UgiFGUgihOvCWQOWl+Hs2hkTs cc+UaxPxbWvg0IAJ5OYy =kCQb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ OTR-dev mailing list OTR-dev@lists.cypherpunks.ca http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev
