Re: Proposal for new Attribute packet

[lutz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lutz Donnerhacke)]

* Jack Repenning wrote:
>I'm not sure this addresses the use Hal had in mind.  An implication of
>allowing an attribute packet "wherever a userid packet may be" is that it
>can be signed by another party.  I imagine the UI he has in mind would
>allow this other party to add the attribute, rather than (or, "in addition
>to") the key owner doing so.  The end goal is (I think) the ability to
>express the meaning of your signature ... "I certify this key for business
>purposes, but I wouldn't trust this blighter with the personal secrets of a
>snail."  

It is better to add it the the signature subpacket or the zero certificate.