Re: Back-signatures, part II

At 03:20 PM 10/30/2003 -0500, David Shaw wrote:


> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:37:18AM -0800, Trevor Perrin wrote:
>
> > In my scenario, a bunch of different primary key holders trust a
> > single subkey holder to perform signatures on their behalf.  The
> > subkey holder wants to make sure that each signature is attributed
> > to the proper primary key.
>
> I'm having trouble seeing the lack of this ability as a problem, much
> less a problem that needs a fix.
>
> It's always possible to come up with a (perhaps convoluted) situation
> where any feature would be useful, and with all due respect, I think
> this scenario crosses the convolution line.
Fair enough.  The more useful scenario I was thinking of is where a single 
primary key is held by a server, which issues short-lived subkeys to 
different users, so they don't have to bother keeping a primary key secure.
But in that case, I think the "Signer's User ID" subpacket is sufficient to 
differentiate things.

Trevor