On Jan 19, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 01/18/2011 05:43 PM, David Shaw wrote:
No, this would be another use of the existing public/secret key version
registry. We already have a registry that covers key versions.
[...]
Sorry - I wasn't clear enough. Rather than using a notation, I was saying
that if that we should define a "true" subpacket (not a notation)
for this, but define the subpacket in a flexible enough way that we
won't be throwing the subpacket away (or having to maintain it just for
V4) when V5 comes.
ok, i understand what you're saying. I'm game for either approach.
Here's a proposal: i'll start with an issuer-fpr@... notation that will
use the exact value (version byte, fpr) that we expect to be the content
of the new subpacket type, demonstrate it, and then use that experience
to draft an update to RFC 4880 and apply for a new subpacket allocation
if it seems to make sense.
Is it kosher to use a notation this way instead of using an explicitly
experimental subpacket type?
Sure, you can do either one.
David