Hi Derek,
On Wed, 02 Sep 2020 20:59:34 +0200,
Derek Atkins wrote:
Having said that, there was certainly discussion about the "revert to 4880
requirement for a user id packet" change. I don't recall the other
topic.
As of draft 9 (published 9 March 2020) the User ID packet was still optional.
In draft 10 (published 31 August 2020) that change was reverted.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-09#section-11.1
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-10#section-11.1
It was reverted specifically by this commit:
Revert to the RFC4880 requirement of having a User ID.
With the below referenced patch Derek Atkins integrated his
"Device-Certificate Draft" to allow the use of a stripped down OpenPGP
key by space constrained devices. The draft was never meant as a
general lifting of requirements which were intentionally introduced
when formalizing the old PGP 2 formats as OpenPGP. This patch
clarifies this.
https://gitlab.com/openpgp-wg/rfc4880bis/-/commit/6fd718d39fc8db20e4731350899db1b7c48c721e
which was made on 12 March 2020.
Between January 25, 2020 and March 12, 2020, there was one mail to
this mailing list, which was a message from DKG about the stateless
openpgp cli. I reviewed the archives from the past year, but I
couldn't find this discussed. Did I miss something?
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/?
FWIW, my position and, as I understand it, Justus' and Vincent's is
that User IDs ought to be optional. In fact, Hagrid is built around
that assumption, and Sequoia explicitly supports it.
Thanks,
Neal
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp