-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
From: "Jon Callas" <jon(_at_)callas(_dot_)org>
I know of no other desired changes. I would like bis-05 to be Penultimate
Call. Does anyone object?
I still desire a "revocation target" subpacket to identify the
specific signature being revoked:
31 = revocation identification
188.8.131.52. Revocation identification
(1 octet PK algorithm)
(1 octet hash algorithm)
(N octets hash)
where the N octets are the hash from the signature being revoked.
My original suggestion did not include the PK algorithm field.
Jon Callas added that in his revised sketch. I don't feel a need
for it, but I won't object, either.
David Shaw also suggested including the timestamp from the revocation
packet, to allow a blazingly fast comparison. Again, I could live
with or without this.
Without the ability to revoke a specific signature, I strongly object
to multiple self-signatures being interpreted "any way it sees fit".
Yes, there's a RECOMMENDED behavior, and that may be the best we can
hope for in old implementations. It's sad to suggest that when
conversing among new implementations, a key owner cannot update its
self-signature in a clear and unambiguous way. But a revocation
target would satisfy my objection. There may be other solutions to
this specific problem, such as a "supercedes" subpacket, but I don't
think they're as generally powerful or useful.
Note that I would not limit the use of this subpacket to self-signatures.
I think it would be equally meaningful for ordinary certifications,
to disambiguate between signatures with different subpackets (e.g.,
notation, trust limits, policy) or classes (e.g., 0x10 through 0x13).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----