Re: V3 secret keys

[Ben Laurie <[e-mail]>]

Hal Finney wrote:
> Daniel Nagy writes:
>> I sincerely hope that this whole mess will be cleaned up with V5, where
>> there seems to be a consensus not to implement encrypted private key packets
>> at all, but put unencrypted private key packets into integrity protected
>> symmetrically encrypted packets instead.
> 
> I haven't participated in the recent discussion, partly because I think
> it is a little premature until we get the current spec put to bed.
> 
> I am not sure I like this idea.  We'll need to retain the old mechanism
> for many years at least, requiring us to support yet another set of
> incompatible mechanisms.  And I don't know if the new proposal really
> simplifies things much.

Surely you should already support this method?

> Complications have been pointed out regarding sending multiple keys
> encrypted with different passphrases, requiring us to explicitly support
> multiply-concatenated symmetric-encryption & SKESK packets, which is
> not necessary at present.

It isn't?

> It might require us to bite the bullet and
> clarify exactly what sequences of packets are legal, with possible
> backwards-compatibility problems.

Hmm. My implementation will eat _any_ sequence of packets.

-- 
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