In <slrn64mlhh(_dot_)l9(_dot_)lutz(_at_)taranis(_dot_)iks-jena(_dot_)de>, on
10/20/97
at 01, lutz(_at_)taranis(_dot_)iks-jena(_dot_)de (Lutz Donnerhacke) said:
* Hal Finney wrote:
Phil Zimmermann has suggested that we generalize the keyID concept
to allow it to be variable length. Rather than fixing it as a 64 bit
Not necessary. The new draft defines the key ID to not unique. That's
enough.
Well I think we should have had some disscussion on this. This really
plays havok on keyring lookups & management if keyID is nolonger unique.
If this is the tact to be taken then we should look at the encrypt & sig
packets and find a unique identifier to use with them perhaps just put the
whole fingerprint there. Without a unique identifyer there will be a
marked decrease of performance in PGP operations in areas where PGP
performance is poor to begin with.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0
Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html
---------------------------------------------------------------