On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Michael Young wrote:
"David Shaw" <dshaw(_at_)jabberwocky(_dot_)com> writes:
The only thing that really troubles me about the idea is that it
raises problems for the (legal, to my reading of 2440) encrypt-only v4
key.
This doesn't trouble me... I strongly believe that we should
remove the loophole that allows encrypt-only top-level v4 keys,
for exactly this reason. (I was astounded when David pointed out
the seemingly permissive language in another forum.)
Agreed.
Why is it important to be able to generate such a thing? Is it such a
burden to have to generate a signing key?
[If you don't care about uid validity, which you mustn't if you're
using an encrypt-only top-level key now, then you could even attach a
bogus top-level key, which would take virtually no time to generate.]