On Wed, August 13, 2014 10:07 am, Brian G. Peterson wrote:
On 08/13/2014 09:02 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
On Wed, August 13, 2014 9:30 am, Werner Koch wrote:
Am I more clear on what I intend? Any comments on this?
Yes. no.
>>
Great! I'll work on the text and get it uploaded for comments.
I believe Werner's point was that the RFC will not change to support
your use case. The old key and signature formats are obsolete, and
should be abandoned.
Then you didn't read my complete reply to Werner. I am not suggesting
going back to the old key and signature (v3) formats. I agree they should
be abandoned.
I am suggesting a *NEW* I-D (which will hopefully be progressed into an
RFC) that would extend RFC4880 and loosen the v4 key restrictions in
section 12.1 that require a UserID+Self-Signature on a Primary Key. And
Werner's reply to my suggestion (which you conveniently removed) was that
it would be easily implementable.
So, any other comments?
Thanks,
Regards,
Brian
-derek
--
Brian G. Peterson
http://braverock.com/brian/
Ph: 773-459-4973
IM: bgpbraverock
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp