Re: [openpgp] OpenPGP Web Key Directory I-D

[Ian Jackson <[e-mail]>]

Werner Koch writes ("Re: OpenPGP Web Key Directory I-D"):
> On Wed,  7 Nov 2018 20:49, [e-mail] said:
> > Suggested modification: Replace this part of the URL with the
> > URL-encoded email address.
> 
> Nope: That breaks existing implementations and would not allow to serve
> the data from static files.

It certainly would allow serving the data from static files.  If you
wanted case-insensitivity and can't configure your webserver to smash
the case, then then in practice you could make three files.

Overall, I described this protocol to Simon Tatham (author of PuTTY)
in the pub last night and he spluttered into his cider and said "is it
April the 1st in a different timezone?"

> > III. Normative status of this document
> 
> |   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
> |   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
> |   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
> |   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
> 
> OTOH, it is a standard practise that RFCs are based on existing
> implementations and we have that implemented in in GnUPG 2.1.12 (May
> 2016) and thus for example also in Debian Stretch

I don't think most of the Debian folks realise they are participating
in a protocol design experiment.

Since you are still in the protocol design phase, you would no doubt
welcome implementation and deployment of an alternative simpler
protocol ?

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <[e-mail]>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.