Le Mon, 29 Apr 2013 01:17:04 -0400,
"Robert J. Hansen" <rjh(_at_)sixdemonbag(_dot_)org> a écrit :
On 4/28/2013 10:37 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
Other things we IMHO really need notation standards for:
This really isn't the place for it, guys. GnuPG-devel is for
discussion of how to make GnuPG track the standard better; the
OpenPGP list is for discussion of how to make the standard itself
better.
Yep, so I switched the thread to the other mailing list.
Things I want in the protocol:
I'll make my own wish list simple:
I don't want *anything* new included in the standard unless there
exists at least one user who says, "the absence of this feature is a
showstopper for me and is blocking my adoption of GnuPG." This user
needs to be able to show a real-world use case and be willing to
volunteer to run trials in a real-world environment.
No real-world user? No feature.
So I answered because I really "need" such feature in OpenPGP for
real-world :
2) What is the key used for?
And I see at least 4 purposes :
- To authenticate itself through TLS [RFC6091]
- Maybe To sign other certificates (subkeys on smartcard issues)
- To authenticate through HTTP (gpgauth or
https://github.com/Open-UDC/open-udc/blob/master/docs/HTTP_OpenPGP_Authentication.draft.txt)
- To sign an OpenUDC transaction.
I work especially on the 2 last purposes. And having the possibility
for the owner to set descriptions, or more flags on its (sub)keys inside
its OpenPGP certificate, would be a more elegant solution than some
workaround we have to manage.
That's my own wish list, and I desperately hope it comes to pass. :)
We have to better organize A wish list, or it will be a mess to
identify their elements. :-)
---
jbar.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp