[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: critical notation data sub-packets
On 1999-05-25 15:31:11 +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
> We should avoid to use private sub-packets when there is another
> way to do the task.
I'm not thinking about private ones. ;-)
The current spec says:
This subpacket describes a "notation" on the signature that the
issuer wishes to make. The notation has a name and a value, each
of which are strings of octets. There may be more than one
notation in a signature. Notations can be used for any extension
the issuer of the signature cares to make.
While this is really fine for private extensions, I see a problem
with using notation data to put information into a sigature
sub-packet in a standardized way. Essentially, we are lacking a
registry (or a conflict-free naming scheme) for notation data names.
So, to the working group: Should standardized signature extensions
go into sub-packets of their own, or should one start to standardize
certain notation data names?