Re: draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-06.txt

David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com> Tue, 24 September 2002 17:16 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06434 for <openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:16:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id g8OH5a129315 for ietf-openpgp-bks; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from claude.kendall.corp.akamai.com (fw01.cmbrmaks.akamai.com [80.67.64.10]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g8OH5Zv29311 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 10:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.kendall.corp.akamai.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8OH5Wb15311 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:05:32 -0400
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:05:32 -0400
From: David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com>
To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-06.txt
Message-ID: <20020924170532.GA1593@akamai.com>
Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org
References: <3D908DF1.F6739425@saiknes.lv>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3D908DF1.F6739425@saiknes.lv>
X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560
X-URL: http://www.jabberwocky.com/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 06:08:17PM +0200, disastry@saiknes.lv wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
> 
> Bodo Moeller wrote:
> > Of course the one problem we cannot avoid is that the legitimate owner
> > of the key cannot keep the key alive indefinitely.  This is because
> > this "problem" is exactly the security feature that me and Florian
> > Weimer and Derek Atkins want to have: we don't want the bad guy to be
> > able to unexpire the key if he gets hold of the secret key.
> 
> so set key expiration in direct key signature. there can be only
> one direct key signature. direct key signature is self signature (5.2.3.3)
> so key expiration can be set in it. (though most PGP implementations may
> not recognize key expiration in direct key signature....)

It is not true that there can be only one direct key signature.  In
fact, in certain cases you pretty much must have more than one.  For
example, if you have multiple designated revokers which are all
sensitive.

David

-- 
   David Shaw  |  dshaw@jabberwocky.com  |  WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
      We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson