Problem with faked-system-time option

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 06/15/2011 04:56 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2011, 03:16:16 schrieb Jerome Baum:

>> We just need to agree on
>> a name, maybe Werner can confirm we are free to use
>> "timestamp-only at gnupg.org"? What would the value mean?
> 
> Shall I repeat the proposal, or is that a question to Werner? :-)
> 
> "The signer makes no statement about the content of the signed data (may not 
> even have been able to read it) but only confirms its existance at the time of 
> the given timestamp."

I think it is a mistake to make this particular notation, when signature
type 0x40 already exists:

 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#page-21

---------------
   0x40: Timestamp signature.
       This signature is only meaningful for the timestamp contained in
       it.
---------------

I'm happy with the proposal to start using notations more, and creating
a culture of publishing well-defined semantics around them; i just don't
think this particular goal is well-served by notations, since it is
already in the core protocol specification.

Regards,

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1030 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110615/49009c8f/attachment.pgp>