IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Fingerprints

Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse> Mon, 20 April 2015 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <look@my.amazin.horse>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875811B2FC7 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uls8jo_3hCsK for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mugenguild.com (mugenguild.com [5.135.189.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 825C01B2FC0 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (dhcp176-197.wlan.rz.tu-bs.de [134.169.176.197]) by mail.mugenguild.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 245945FCEF; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:21:52 +0200 (CEST)
References: <CAMm+LwhbB+-MnGRBCvprgAGOuu+5CJ2rgod7EBGOQR5UNVrspQ@mail.gmail.com> <87d232lkb6.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <sjmlhhmakxp.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <1429543533.24823.73.camel@scientia.net>
From: Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse>
To: Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 18:18:55 +0200
In-reply-to: <1429543533.24823.73.camel@scientia.net>
Message-ID: <87h9saepjh.fsf@littlepip.fritz.box>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/26fo2jRRkgoyfWPBx3RM20egV2o>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Fingerprints
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 16:24:22 -0000

On 20 Apr 2015, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 11:17 -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> I still believe that the creation time (and key expiration time, if
>> it exists) should be included.
> I think the same accounts for the key usage flags.

Definitely in favor of including key usage flags. I can't think of a
reason these should ever be mutable over the lifetime of a key, at least
in the incarnation of the key material identified by one fingerprint.

> Or actually, we should perhaps make primary keys to be generally
> certifying-only keys.

Not sure about that, primary keys with more than C capability can have
legitimate use cases.

 - V

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email