[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [openpgp] Overhauling User IDs / Standardizing User Attributes

2018-06-27 07:06:10
Hi Leo,

But I'm not in favor of other attributes:
   - "role" (e.g. "Qubes OS developer"), who would verify that? Probably
only some kind of master Qubes key should sign it but then how do we
know if this is a correct master Qubes key? Wouldn't e-mail in form of
user(_at_)developers(_dot_)qubes(_dot_)com better express that? (for the record 
I also
don't like "project X signing key" comments but that's another story),
   - "pseudonym", also not clear what are the rules of signing this ID,

Well, I don't really like them either, but that'd be a way for people to
have a place to put the information they currently appear to want to put
in their User ID fields. The aim of these fields is mostly to avoid
misuse of other fields.

I think the root of the problem is that people either input something because there is a Comment field, or they think they need to input something there (e.g. "Work").

In the first case it's slowly getting better as tools as gpg have sensible defaults now (for example, they don't ask for comment when creating keys).

In the second case a good solution would just be educating people (for example making them familiar with this timeless piece: ).

I'd think the concept of saying “a key is valid” is likely a problem
anyway, as a key is always valid, and the only thing that can be checked
is the validity of the association between a User ID and a key (for the
WoT, there is no need to have a key “valid” for trusting it, so I guess
the change shouldn't generate any issue).

By "valid" I meant the strict technical term used by gpg (see e.g. this excellent resource: ).

So this would require quite some changes especially around the user
interface, that couldn't just display a valid User ID as “key handle” as
is currently done by at least GnuPG and Enigmail, but would also have to
reconstruct something intelligent to display based on the set of
validated User Attributes.

Exactly. And this kind of modification that requires changing all tools along the path, for a standard so widely used as OpenPGP can be hard to pull off.

Kind regards,

openpgp mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>