IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Revoking Keys: Adding a superceded-by parameter

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Mon, 27 July 2015 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
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 87B9A1A8A6D for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 23:25:26 -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 NIQdzzWqyxR1 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 23:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE0871A8A68 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 23:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) id 1ZJbqk-0002Im-TI for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:25:22 +0200
Received: from wk by vigenere.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1ZJbnj-0005cV-D9; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:22:15 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse>
References: <87wpxvjf9d.wl-neal@walfield.org> <87d1zmlv3p.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <87twsyk35z.wl-neal@walfield.org> <87y4i9je9f.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87h9osnswg.wl-neal@walfield.org> <874mks7yx1.fsf@littlepip.fritz.box> <878ua39qz5.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <87y4i36l1x.fsf@littlepip.fritz.box>
Organisation: g10 Code GmbH
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
OpenPGP: id=F2AD85AC1E42B367; url=finger:wk@g10code.com
Mail-Followup-To: Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse>, IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 08:22:14 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87y4i36l1x.fsf@littlepip.fritz.box> (Vincent Breitmoser's message of "Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:38:34 +0200")
Message-ID: <87mvyi86i1.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/B3QEC8gwjBzQSUeYWQgN2YcwTWA>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Revoking Keys: Adding a superceded-by parameter
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 27 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0000

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 16:38, look@my.amazin.horse said:

> As in, deprecate the subpacket?  Or move it towards notation data?

The discussion was around the idea to deprecate the use of the reason
for revocation because it is pretty complicated to make real use of it
due to non-easy semantics.

> exist as subpackets.  Even if notation data is the "right" place to put
> this, there is at least some value in consistency.

We can't avoid all inconsistencies created in the past or inherited from
existsing implementaions.



Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email