IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Issuer Fingerprint

Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse> Tue, 14 June 2016 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <look@my.amazin.horse>
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 401B412D6AE for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 e8XNUd2P7Paq for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mugenguild.com (mugenguild.com [5.135.189.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6562F12D67E for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (dhcp181-201.wlan.rz.tu-bs.de [134.169.181.201]) by mail.mugenguild.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0627F5FC07; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:27:07 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:27:05 +0200
From: Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse>
To: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>, "openpgp@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20160614132705.GA28122@littlepip.fritz.box>
References: <87mvmp5rmi.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <CABtrr-Vrv-S_2htPECqLR+Butqr9GzwvPaXfqEyW2fBRW__o_w@mail.gmail.com> <87mvmnyknu.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87mvmnyknu.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/gCskBD_pU2anSBetTm7g8m4YIgs>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Issuer Fingerprint
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: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:27:13 -0000

Werner Koch(wk@gnupg.org)@Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 03:17:25PM +0200:
> I can imagine valid reasons not to use this; in particular if you want a
> very short signature and the key is already known my other means.

I'd have thought it's mostly an issue of backwards compatibility?

Generally though, I think this type of "there may be valid scenarios",
which make a standard less strict and give more freedom to the
implementation, result in severely hampered interoperability, defeating
the purpose of having a standard in the first place.

 - V

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email