Re: including the entire fingerprint of the issuer in an OpenPGP certifi

On 01/18/2011 05:05 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> I don't think we want people using other than the consensus fingerprint 
> algorithms and methods.  I suggest we make the first byte a version field, 
> which can be 
> set to '4' today for the current fingerprint, '5' for v5 keys, etc.
Are we talking about versioning the fingerprint scheme, or versioning
the key?  It sounds like a versioned fingerprint scheme, not a versioned
key scheme to me.

If we say '4' means the fingerprinting standard in RFC 4880 (OpenPGPv4)
and '5' means some other fingerprint scheme then we're effectively
creating a new registry to be managed by IANA, right?

I have no objection to that (and presumably it would be an exceptionally
slow-growing registry) but it'd be good to be clear about what we're doing.

I'd just as soon name the notation issuer-fpr4@whatever.example for the
current fingerprint and then name a new notation
issuer-fpr5@whatever.example when that happens, reusing the existing
notation registry.

(or, if this works and we want iana to allocate a "global" notation
title, just ask for "issuer-fpr4" now, an "issuer-fpr5" later)

This is all fiddly syntax choices, of course, without much importance,
other than avoiding (current and future) bureaucratic overhead.

> I suppose we could skip that field and detect version based on size,
> but why use heuristics when we can know for sure with a version byte?
We could also be sure if the name of the notation is precise enough.

        --dkg

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature