Hi,
At Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:41:30 +0200,
Vincent Breitmoser wrote:
On 25 Jul 2015, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
I decided to use a notation rather than a new signature subpacket.
This is because the signature subpacket namespace is tiny compared
to the notation data's namespace.
I think I disagree with this. It's true that the signature subpacket
namespace is not very large, but the numbers are that only ~30 subpacket
ids out of 100 are actually used. If we ever get past 70, we might want
to think about how to deal with the problem (there is always the 8th bit
left for this purpose, too), until then unused namespace is wasted
namespace and we gain nothing by avoiding its use.
Are there any other standardized uses for the notation namespace? I am
only aware of proposed ones, and none which have very widespread use
outside of closed systems.
Are you arguing that since notations aren't used in practice that they
are probably not widely supported and it would be better to use a new
signature subpacket? If not, what is your argument against
introducing a notation?
Thanks!
:) Neal
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp