Re: V5 key packet format requirements

[Ben Laurie <[e-mail]>]

Adam Back wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:53:33AM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
>>> 2. Scrap encrypted private keys. We already have a symmetrically
>>> encrypted container format with sufficient integrity protection, so
>>> there is no reason to maintain another one. Just put the
>>> unencrypted private key packet into that container, if you need
>>> encryption. This will reduce the number of things to worry about
>>> and make the security of OpenPGP easier to assess and maintain.
>> Yes, please!
> 
> What if you want different password on different keys?
> 
> (Think eg long term signing key vs short term signing key -- no point
> having separate signing keys unless have possibility to use different
> password.)

Eh? You can have 1 symmetric encrypted packet per key, they don't have
to share one.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff