Re: draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-06.txt

[Bodo Moeller <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 10:37:06AM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:

> Before you go putting words in my mouth...

I didn't.  You wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Derek Atkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-06.txt

> Please point out an advantage of *key* expiration over
> *self-signature* expiration in that scenario.

A bad guy gets a copy of my private key..  If there is a key
expiration then they cannot keep it alive indefinitely.  Or is key
compromise not an attack you care about? ;)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So apparently you think that key expiration should be final while
self-signature expiration is not.  If you have a different
interpretation of what you wrote, I'd like to hear it.


> [...]                            I agree with Jon that you need to
> separate out the "this key is alive" from "this key is dead".  The
> "Keepalives" are self-signatures with limited lifetimes.

This is exactly what I am saying: use self-signatures with limited
lifetime (subpacket type 3) if you want to be able to keep the key
alive by re-signing later.  And use self-signatures with a key
expiration time (subpacket type 9) only if you want the key to finally
expire by then.

We have these two different subpacket types, so why not use them?!


-- 
Bodo Möller <[e-mail]>
PGP http://www.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/TI/Mitarbeiter/moeller/0x36d2c658.html
* TU Darmstadt, Theoretische Informatik, Alexanderstr. 10, D-64283 Darmstadt
* Tel. [phone], Fax [phone]