IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Fingerprint requirements for OpenPGP

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Wed, 13 April 2016 07:25 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
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 C789D12D63D for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 0qhMSJ5Yvi7Q for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:25:30 -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 AA0AA12D1B8 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.80 #2 (Debian)) id 1aqFB1-0000iQ-3e for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:25:27 +0200
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1aqF6T-00049a-Qn; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:20:45 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
References: <87vb3nslqh.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87potug3s5.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
Organisation: g10 Code GmbH
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
OpenPGP: url=https://k.gnupg.net/80615870F5BAD690333686D0F2AD85AC1E42B367
Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>, IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 09:20:45 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87potug3s5.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> (Werner Koch's message of "Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:01:14 +0200")
Message-ID: <877fg2dlf6.fsf@wheatstone.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/KGsjPvkcaTwdR9NiWT_WrwazCqk>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Fingerprint requirements for OpenPGP
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 07:25:32 -0000

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 19:01, wk@gnupg.org said:

> discussions is that we should to decide between a) and c).  I don't
> really care given that using a creation date of 0 can be used when
> needed.

Of course we would add a creation date self-signature subpacket which is
used iff the creation date from the public key packet is 0.  This allows
to see which scheme implementations will prefer.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email