On Wed, 02 Sep 2020 22:28:32 +0200,
Derek Atkins wrote:
There is a thread that started by Justus Winter on February 20, 2019,
Subject "User ID Attribute Subpacket", which began the conversation to
revert back to the RFC4880 definitions. The thread kind of ended on March
8, 2019, but no changes were made to the draft at that time. Search the
archive for "attribute" to easily find the thread.
Thanks for digging this up.
My guess is that Werner took his time to update the spec based on the
conversations.
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.
That was not the conversation that was had, and Vincent was not involved
in the thread at all. But then again re-reading this thread it was about
why have User-Id Attribute Subpacket in addition to the UserID packet..
It wasn't specifically about reverting the change to make UserIDs
optional.
In that thread, Justus specifically talked about stripping User IDs:
The only thing that having UserID subpackets for the User Attribute packet
is that you can have multiple userids bound by one binding signature. But
that is a feature that I dislike, because then we can no longer strip down
TPKs so that they only include a subset of the userids, which can enhance
the privacy of our users.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/peinz1RAzaSSgWWbP3-voM1IpOQ/
And:
I support dropping the requirement of a UserID or UserAttribute packet.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/51DeCO8jXvaKKzZiq1sKev-aZNw/
Thanks,
Neal
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp