"Neal H. Walfield" <neal(_at_)walfield(_dot_)org> writes:
Hi,
At Tue, 21 Jul 2015 23:15:48 +0200,
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On Tue 2015-07-21 19:04:22 +0200, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
At Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:32:29 +0200,
Werner Koch wrote:
Simon pointed out to me in another context that the user id (section
5.11 of RFC 4880) is not always in RFC 2822 name-addr format, but is
sometimes simply a hostname. I think we should expand the
recommendation in that section to cover this usage.
The name-addr convention has served us well for more than 20 years and I
see no reason to explicitly recommend the use of just a hostname. I see
no problem which will be solved by this. In case the hostname shall be
used similar to a a user id (e.g. for DNS lookup), it is easier to use a
pseudo mail address like hostmaster(_at_)foo(_dot_)example(_dot_)org.
I'm not making a recommendation about what should be done, but
suggesting we update the RFC to reflect current practice.
Can you point to existing examples of this usage (by fingerprint,
maybe)?
This usage was pointed out to me by Simon. I've cc'd him. I hope
he'll be able to answer your question. Nevertheless, Derek Atkins'
follow up to your question suggests that at least some people are
using this convention.
I cannot recall what application this was for, but I distinctly recall
working with OpenPGP keys issued for hostnames in some context.
If nobody has any better pointer than this, I suggest to ignore this
aspect. I'm not sure adding recommendations about using
hostmaster(_at_)foo(_dot_)example(_dot_)org is a good idea, so -1 on that --
better to be
silent on things without a use-case.
/Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp