I was not aware of that (expired) I-D. Anyway, I think that the User
Attributes should not be extended over their use for an image. URIs can
simply be represented by plain User IDs and software can easily detected
such URIs if desired.
This is an excellent idea. Coupled with signature notation data, that
can be made critical one can assure that unknown Linked Identity UIDs
would be considered invalid by software that does not understand a
particular notation data proof.
Not to mention UIDs and Notation Data can be added using command line
tools that already exist.
But I do have to agree with Vincent that if UATs are deprecated they
should be marked as such.
Actually, previously I got a very different impression when I diffed RFC
4880 and 4880 bis-02 and saw new section "5.13.2. User ID Attribute
Subpacket" [0] that was introduced for Device Certificates [1]. Is this
something old to be removed or an entirely different case?
Kind regards,
Wiktor
[0]:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-02#section-5.13.2
[1]: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/openpgp/current/msg08460.html
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp