Re: critical notation data sub-packets

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxx>]

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?