-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In section 5.2.1 of bis-07, in the paragraph about notary signatures,
the draft reads:
Note that a notary signature SHOULD include a Signature Target
subpacket to give easy identification.
I disagree this is necessary. As I see it, the point of a signature
target subpacket is to identify a signature *when that identification
is not obvious from the new signature*.
A signature target can be necessary or useful when issuing a
certification revocation signature (i.e. 0x30). This case is
signature A (the 0x30 signature), on data B (primary key + user ID),
referring to signature C (the original 0x10-0x13 signature). In this
case, a signature target is required to specify which signature C is.
In the case of notary signatures, there is no "C" to specify. It is
merely signature A (the 0x50 signature), on data B (the signature to
be notarized). There is no benefit in specifying B twice as the data
to be signed and then again as an additional subpacket.
In the interest of simplicity, I would like to strike the sentence
above. Note that this does not prevent someone from using a signature
target for notary signatures if they still choose to. All I am
advocating is removing any requirement (even a SHOULD) that they do
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2rc1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----