* Hal Finney wrote:
Lutz Donnerhacke, lutz(_at_)taranis(_dot_)iks-jena(_dot_)de, writes:
I'm very unhappy with it. It seems to make no sense at all. Imagine a JPEG
of the owner of a key. Where should it inserted in the database? IMHO it's
related to the UserID. So simply use the URL subpacket of the signature page
or define an new one. But *do* *not* bind it to the key!
The idea is that a userid describes information about the key holder:
his name, and email address. The attribute packet can describe other
forms of information about the keyholder. So conceptually it is an
alternative to the userid, and should be placed at the same level in the
hierarchy.
I see. Is is now allowed to add a zero certificate to the key as described
in the formal draft? Zero certificates can hold the key expiration time and
related entities. So defining a JPEG subtype in the signature allows to
bind it even to the key, but this cannot be certified by others.
/*
* OpenPGP Reference implementation and specification to be
* Author/Editor: Lutz(_dot_)Donnerhacke(_at_)Jena(_dot_)Thur(_dot_)De
* Source is GPLed.
*/
%{
%}
%union{
}
%type <pubkey> public_key
%%
/* structure of a public key */
public_key:
public_key_packet maybe_trust key_compromise
{ $$=$1;
$$.revoked=1;
}
| public_key_packet maybe_trust signed_userIDs
{ $$=$1;
$$.userIDs=$3;
}
| public_key_packet maybe_trust signed_userIDs subkeys
{ $$=$1;
$$.userIDs=$3;
$$.subkeys=$3;
}
| public_key_packet maybe_trust zero_certificate signed_userIDs
{ $$=$1;
$$.userIDs=$3;
}
| public_key_packet maybe_trust zero_certificate signed_userIDs subkeys
{ $$=$1;
$$.userIDs=$3;
$$.subkeys=$3;
}
;
%%%