Re: [openpgp] Call for adoption of draft-gallagher-openpgp-replacementkey

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[e-mail]>]

On Sun 2024-04-07 10:32:32 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> If automatic processing is intended, I think readers should come away
> with some understanding of how that automatic processing is intended to
> be implemented given a key that has 0, 1, 2 and 300.000 replacementkey
> subpackets.

I agree that this draft would be significantly more useful if it
described some explicit processing steps and gave implementers guidance
about how to expect processing to happen.

Incorporating some of the motivating text from Andrew into the
introduction would also be useful.

Andrew, Daphne, do you think the draft could accomodate those kinds of
additions if the working group were to adopt it?

Simon, would you be up for proposing some of this text if the working
group were to adopt?

it doesn't need to be perfect initially, or to cover every possible use
case, but having some initial description of a common use case when
consuming these signals would i think motivate both readers and
implementers to think through how to make the thing effective.  It would
also probably help trigger some discussions about how it could
potentially be abused, and maybe the WG can build in some mitigations
once the potential abuses are clearer.

            --dkg