Re: [openpgp] Issuer Fingerprint

[Werner Koch <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:27, [e-mail] said:

> Generally though, I think this type of "there may be valid scenarios",
> which make a standard less strict and give more freedom to the
> implementation, result in severely hampered interoperability, defeating
> the purpose of having a standard in the first place.

I strongly disagree for OpenPGP.  The MUSTs, SHOULDs, and MAYs have been
carefully designed and implemented in a sensible way.  Thus there are no
real world interoperability problems between OpenPGP implementations.

Case in point, 23 extra bytes make a big difference on embedded systems
if the signature can be encoded in 86 bytes (detached, Ed25519, no
Issuer subpacket).  No, this is not a use case you would handle with a
general purpose tool, but OpenPGP should not forbid this use case.
After all we are all better off if a common standard is used also in -
for most people - esoteric use cases.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

--
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
    /* EFH in Erkrath: https://alt-hochdahl.de/haus */