On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 02:44:47PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote:
The context is the implementation of IOU notes as self-signatures on
PGP
public keys, so that the PKS infrastructure can be used for their
dissemination (and, thus, for credit reputation tracking). More on
this at
the upcoming FC2008, in Cozumel. ;-)
I think you're splitting hairs in a delightful way.
David Shaw describes the way I always considered it. Non-revocable was
always supposed to be non-revocable. However, as I've said many times,
OpenPGP is far more syntactic than semantic.
Designated revokers have always seemed a bit messy to me. The spec
allows for things like Alice revoking signatures issued by Baker on
Charlie's key (Alice being Baker's designated revoker). In practice,
nobody has ever actually implemented that. All implementations that I
know of allow Alice to revoke Baker's key and that's it.
If we go down that path, I'd rather see Daniel's desired semantics
implemented using notations or new subpackets, rather than add further
meaning to designated revokers and the non-revocable tag.
Actually, I'd go even further and suggest at some point in the future
(hey - a WG item!) we split the current notion of designated revokers
in pieces. Users can grant the designated revoker exactly what powers
(or combination thereof) they choose to. One ability is to revoke
signatures. Another is to revoke keys.
Note that I'm not against the "designed revoker revoking signatures"
concept. I just don't want the "you can revoke my signatures" ability
inextricably tied to the "you can revoke my key" ability. They're
really not the same.
David