IETF Logo Mail Archive

[openpgp] Offline key flag (was Re: marking subkeys as constrained for specific use -- new key usage flags?)

David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com> Tue, 05 March 2013 16:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dshaw@jabberwocky.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EAE221F8606 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:31:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ubUIXqrUwa9 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:31:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from walrus.jabberwocky.com (walrus.jabberwocky.com [173.9.29.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1154321F8896 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:31:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dshaw.nasuni.net (vpn.nasuni.com [173.166.63.186]) (authenticated bits=0) by walrus.jabberwocky.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r25GUshL006253 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:30:55 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com>
In-Reply-To: <87obexlu3e.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 11:30:54 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D491B5DB-5F6A-4C1C-9474-29EF5571D893@jabberwocky.com>
References: <5135BDE6.1070200@fifthhorseman.net> <6F1173CD-290C-4A38-BD80-152C5E553D1F@jabberwocky.com> <87obexlu3e.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
To: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: [openpgp] Offline key flag (was Re: marking subkeys as constrained for specific use -- new key usage flags?)
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 16:31:11 -0000

On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> wrote:

> While we are at it: What about using 0x40 of the first octet to indicate
> that the private component of the key is stored on offline medium?  That
> "offline key" would nicely go with "split key" (0x10) and "group key"
> (0x80).  OTR may then go into the second octet.

Can you give an example why would someone want to publish that their private key is offline?  I'm not sure I see a use for that.

David

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email