Re: Series of minor questions about OpenPGP 4

On 01/30/2009 01:15 PM, Peter Thomas wrote:
> But by the way: This would be another thing that one could think of in
> future revisions of the RFC.
> Policy-URI on self-signatures:
> 0x10-0x13: The policy that is used for signing, with the corresponding UserID.
> 0x1F: The global policy for the whole key, when signing anything
> (especially other keys/UIDs) with that key
> 0x18: The policy used when making signatures with this key
>
> Policy-URI on other signatures:
> The policy under which this signature was issued. (Just like it is
> interpreted now)
I'd disagree with such a change, if only because it seems to force a
semantic change on signatures that may already be in existence.  It'd be
weird if i made a signature that i knew meant "foo", and then came back
later to find that according to the new RFC, i'd actually stated "bar".

If you want to propose a new subpacket with the above semantics (perhaps
one that would be invalid on anything but a self-sig), i wouldn't be
opposed, though i'm not sure how useful it would be.

And how would you interpret the following situation:

 Key A has a self-sig with policy X

  Key A signs B's key,uid pair and includes a with policy-URI Y.

which policy governs the A's signature on B?  why?

        --dkg

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature