-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
From: "David Shaw" <dshaw(_at_)jabberwocky(_dot_)com>
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
The SHOULD language suggests best practice, not strict requirement.
For notary signatures, that's still quite a stretch, though.
On the other hand, I'd love to see a SHOULD clause for revocations.
The Target subpacket eliminates an ambiguity -- without it, the
revocation could refer to any original signature for the same
key/uid. (There is no such ambiguity for notary packets, as
the whole original signature is hashed.) I think that unambiguous
identification is surely a best practice.
So, could you simply move the SHOULD clause from the notary
signature section to revocations :-?
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.
I'd agree that the benefit is slight at best. I suppose if
you had "B" and the material it covered (so that you could generate
B's hash), and you had a disorganized bunch of notary signatures,
then you could pick out the matching ones faster if they had
target subpackets. This doesn't seem like a compelling scenario. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3
iQA/AwUBPp2xmuc3iHYL8FknEQKhyACfeOMthTZOJvKLGkza1p0jYV27IQ4AoMGL
cAwzpSaFeHAleyGDte8Jtz97
=eV36
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----