Hi,
Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo(_at_)scientia(_dot_)net> writes:
On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 12:11 -0700, Jon Callas wrote:
And specifying a expiration time (even if it's 0) should be mandatory.
That's there now.
Again, I don't see where this would be specified, except for the
deprecated v3 keys.
It's not part of the v4 keys, and I can't recall a section which makes
the key exp sig subpacket mandatory.
I read 4880 again and I'm afraid I was wrong and you are correct; the
key expiration was removed in v4 keys.
Having the subpacket mandatory doesn't help, because the self-sig can
always be reissued.
Anyway, the idea for making it mandatory has less to do with the
immutable vs. mutable question... it's rather based on the idea that we
should IMHO try to strengthen and clarify the whole message format.
E.g. I think we should convert the critical-bit to be a non-critical
bit. e.g. everything is considered critical unless explicitly specified
not to be.
With it being in the self-sig there is no way to make it immutable. I
could take the top-level key packet and create a new self-sig on it with
a different key-expiration subpacket. All other signatures on the key
will remain valid (because they don't include the self-sig), and the key
fingerprint wont change (because it doesn't include the selfsig, either).
Cheers,
Chris.
_______________________________________________
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