wk at gnupg.org
Tue Jan 13 17:58:01 CET 2015
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:48, dshaw at jabberwocky.com said:
> My feeling is that whether we do a notation or an assigned subpacket,
> we do it via the IETF process. FWIW, adding an IETF namespace
> notation is via EXPERT REVIEW, which may be simpler than CONSENSUS. I
However, it saves only a few bytes and has the same complexity as a user
space. We can keep this in mind as a fallback solution.
> ultimately, with some code using the user notation and some using the
> subpacket/IETF notation. We can end up stuck in that state for a long
> time, and have to support both for backwards compatibility reasons for
> even longer.
Indeed this needs to be avoided. Checking with the PGP guys to see why
some of the subpacket types are marked as reserved and pick one of them
might also be possible.
I see the main problem that we have no WG and everything needs to go
through the indivual submission process. I have not seen any signs that
the WG will be re-established but this has never been offically
Move both discussions (WG establishment and IssuerFingerprint) to the
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
More information about the Gnupg-devel