Re: [openpgp] details of 4880bis work

On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 13:19 +0200, Vincent Breitmoser wrote: 
> The solution to this problem should be two keyrings.
You probably mean two keys?

>   Different
> encryption settings per user id like this are completely out of scope
> for everyone who isn't familiar with the inner workings of RFC4880.
I don't agree at all.
Actually we should make it finally usable that a person has only one
primary (and certifying/certified) key,... and many subkeys which are
usable for different use cases, which is right now practically
impossible.
And I think once it would be reasonably possible, it makes absolutely
sense to have e.g. different key prefs depending on the UID and/or
(role) subkey.

> it is underspecified to a point
> where trying to figure out what an other implementation meant by some
> constellation of preferences in user ids or direct key signatures is
> little more than guesswork.
Yes.


> Just like gpg, we use the latest signature.  Is there a reason this
> isn't specified?  While I agree that the trust model should not be
> specified, leaving this kind of thing open just leads to confusion
Yes.
IMO this vagueness may be even a security issue.



Cheers.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp