Preserving non-central and privacy with a "permission recording keyserver"

[Dirk Gottschalk]

Hi Andrew.

Am Mittwoch, den 10.07.2019, 09:49 +0100 schrieb Andrew Gallagher:
> On 10/07/2019 00:15, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-devel wrote:
> > > In the keep cases the server should be prepared to see another
> > > revocation to delete the key.  This is a bit questionable in the
> > > "key
> > > compromised" case.
> > Yes, I see. In this case there shoule be some kind of additional
> > confirmation mechanism to avoid abuse.
> 
> I don't follow. If a key is compromised, then the keyblock gets
> deleted.
> What's the additional confirmation mechanism for?

A compromised key will not be deleted in Werners scenario, just
stripped down to primary key and revocation. Not a full Detetion. The
confirmation is for the scenario when the full dataset should be
deleted. Porobably I misunderstood Werner. If so, please forgive me.

Regards,
Dirk

-- 
Dirk Gottschalk

GPG: 4278 1FCA 035A 9A63 4166  CE11 7544 0AD9 4996 F380
Keybase: https://keybase.io/dgottschalk
GitHub: https://github.com/Dirk1980ac


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/attachments/20190710/979a3840/attachment.sig>