Re: [openpgp] Revoking Keys: Adding a superceded-by parameter

["Neal H. Walfield" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

At Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:41:30 +0200,
Vincent Breitmoser wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2015, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > I decided to use a notation rather than a new signature subpacket.
> > This is because the signature subpacket namespace is tiny compared
> > to the notation data's namespace.
> 
> I think I disagree with this.  It's true that the signature subpacket
> namespace is not very large, but the numbers are that only ~30 subpacket
> ids out of 100 are actually used.  If we ever get past 70, we might want
> to think about how to deal with the problem (there is always the 8th bit
> left for this purpose, too), until then unused namespace is wasted
> namespace and we gain nothing by avoiding its use.
> 
> Are there any other standardized uses for the notation namespace? I am
> only aware of proposed ones, and none which have very widespread use
> outside of closed systems.

Are you arguing that since notations aren't used in practice that they
are probably not widely supported and it would be better to use a new
signature subpacket?  If not, what is your argument against
introducing a notation?

Thanks!

:) Neal