Re: [openpgp] OpenPGP private certification [was: Re: Manifesto - who is the new OpenPGP for?]

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu 2015-03-26 15:58:57 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> Yep, I don't actually rate a keysignature as being worth anything
>> until it is enrolled in a TRANS like log.
>
> I think this perspective is dangerous to privacy, if we want to be able
> to support non-public certifications.
>
> I often certify people's keys publicly (or i make OpenPGP certifications
> and send them to the subject and let them decide whether to publish them
> or not).  But i also think it's important to be able to make a
> non-logged, non-public "letter of introduction", to be handed off when
> needed.  OpenPGPv4 already supports this in the form of non-exportable
> signatures.  The UI/UX for this is abysmal in most clients today (anyone
> with UI/UX cycles to spare who wants some brainstorming ideas about how
> to improve this, please talk to me), but it would be a real shame to
> change the protocol in such a way to rule this technique out completely.
>
> Parties who are globally relied-upon (e.g. the X.509 CAs that everyone
> implicitly "trusts") should definitely be publicly logged.
>
> But not everyone who certifies is in (or should be in) that position;
> some of these relationships are private, and we should not force people
> to publish them.

By that I mean fixed in time. I agree that it does not need to be
public. Only the hash needs to be enrolled.