Re: [openpgp] Revoking Keys: Adding a superceded-by parameter

[Werner Koch <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

the minutes from the Prague meeting have not yet been posted but you can
look at them here:

  http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-93-openpgp

On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:41, [e-mail] said:

> 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

subpackets denoted data required for proper operation of the protocol or
to implement extra features.  I do not consider information of a
superceeding key important for the protocol; thus a notation would the
right way.

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

A small problem with the notations is that you can only use the non-IETF
namespace (e.g. using a domain name based name) which make the notation
data unnecessary long.  At the meeting it was suggested that the process
of allocating a new notation in the IETF namespace will be simplified
for example by allow expert review.  This will make it easier to add new
small notions in the future (and perhaps also key flags).

Adding new subpackets is a more delicate thing and should definitely not
be done "ad-hoc" but using a proper process.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.