Re: [openpgp] Revoking Keys: Adding a superceded-by parameter

Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse> Sat, 25 July 2015 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <look@my.amazin.horse>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CCDE1B3036 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:41:40 -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
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 nSDUJ99MQEJz for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:41:38 -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 B0BB11A1BA9 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 13:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (p5798E8AE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [87.152.232.174]) by mail.mugenguild.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF9C461C8D; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:37:44 +0200 (CEST)
References: <87wpxvjf9d.wl-neal@walfield.org> <87d1zmlv3p.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <87twsyk35z.wl-neal@walfield.org> <87y4i9je9f.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <87h9osnswg.wl-neal@walfield.org>
From: Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse>
To: "Neal H. Walfield" <neal@walfield.org>
In-reply-to: <87h9osnswg.wl-neal@walfield.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:41:30 +0200
Message-ID: <874mks7yx1.fsf@littlepip.fritz.box>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/p9aXN8ElF-NUozYOKYqHIUZqyY8>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Revoking Keys: Adding a superceded-by parameter
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 20:41:40 -0000

On 25 Jul 2015, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> I decided to use a notation rather than a new signature subpacket.
> This is because the signature subpacket namespace is tiny compared
> to the notation data's namespace.

I think I disagree with this.  It's true that the signature subpacket
namespace is not very large, but the numbers are that only ~30 subpacket
ids out of 100 are actually used.  If we ever get past 70, we might want
to think about how to deal with the problem (there is always the 8th bit
left for this purpose, too), until then unused namespace is wasted
namespace and we gain nothing by avoiding its use.

Are there any other standardized uses for the notation namespace? I am
only aware of proposed ones, and none which have very widespread use
outside of closed systems.

 - V