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

["Michael Young" <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

From: "David Shaw" <[e-mail]>
> Whoah - I am not proposing that.  My comments were in the context of
> how a potential v5 key format could work (and as a side note on how
> GnuPG handles a v3 key with a v4 selfsig).  That's all.  As I see it,
> without an expiration date *in the key packet*, there is no true
> "hard" expiration date.  I agree with Jon's analysis.

OK... sorry about that.  I agree that a new key format could address this
if anyone cared enough.  (I don't.  Revocation is good enough... which
leads me to wonder how PGP/GnuPG would treat a post-dated revocation,
but that's another unnecessary digression. :-)

> GnuPG 1.0.6 is fairly old now.

It may be old in a CVS sense.  There's a lot of it out there, though...
it's in the RedHat 7.2AS and 7.3 releases, for example.  It was the
only official Windows build for a *long* time.

My point was not that GnuPG was wrong in any way, simply that some
widely installed versions wouldn't support the hard/soft distinction,
should we choose to make one now.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3

iQA/AwUBPZDMXVMkvpTT8vCGEQKmgwCfV/3TIKd4/fu1ew7Hrds3xme14y0AnRyF
gicmzX5IReIG1bHkdVmxXSDz
=UCC3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----