Re: V5 key packet format requirements

[[e-mail] (Daniel A. Nagy)]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:05:34PM +0100, Edwin Woudt wrote:
> --On 2-2-2006 17:07 +0100 "Daniel A. Nagy" <[e-mail]> 
> wrote:
> >
> >1. Exclude creation date from fingerprint and key ID hash computation (and
> >maybe from the key packet, too -- it belongs to the self-signature). This
> >would mean that the key fingerprint and ID depend only on the actual key
> >(key material + algorithm).
> 
> IMHO, things that have nothing to do with the user ID should not be in a 
> self-signature, but in a direct key signature (type 0x1F) instead.

That's a self-signature, too (just not a key-uid binding one). But I agree
that signatures on keys are less popular with implementations than they
should be. OTOH, this is not directly related to the key packet format.
 
> >4. Support for exporting and importing subkeys.
> 
> Why is this needed? Isn't this possible already using the current (V4) 
> packet formats?

It is possible, but in many different ways. Implementations are generally
not interoperable. This stuff must be standardized, IMHO.

-- 
Daniel