-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:05:14AM -0700, Jon Callas wrote:
Can you explain what troubles you about encrypt-only primaries?
Aside from being an unclean exception to a simple model :-?
I don't see exceptions here. The model is quite clearly and simply
stated in 2440. Any key can be of any type. There are no exceptions.
Does this mean that there are possible arrangements of packets that
make no sense? Sure, so don't do that.
I see your suggestion as adding an exception: any key can be of any
type, except that the primary must be able to certify.
2440 already says that a top-level key must be able to sign.
I'm not sure 2440 says that. The relevant bit is in section 11.1,
which says "In a key that has a main key and subkeys, the primary key
MUST be a key capable of signing."
I took this, perhaps wrongly, at face value - that is, if a key had
subkeys, the primary had to be able to sign (for the binding
signatures, presumably). The flip side of this is that if a key does
not have subkeys (and there is nothing wrong with a V4 key without
subkeys), the primary did not have to be able to sign.
Did I misinterpret the intent in 2440 there? If "a key that has a
main key and subkeys" was intended to mean "V4 key", then I strongly
suggest changing it to say "V4 key" explicitly to avoid the confusion
that spawned a good bit of this thread.
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3rc1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Key available at http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc
iD8DBQE/GoxJ4mZch0nhy8kRAiK6AKC88In7Cidl9koc6/RpUNMtr6tCYgCfdlaO
LbD2O+VjN0IyT2Rb1zEC7z4=
=zqVR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----