Re: Timestamp and 3rd party sig

[Werner Koch <wk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:12:51 +0100, Rick van Rein said:

> A topic open for debate would be whether it may be assumed that "extra" or
> "sufficient" effort has been taken to guard and/or synchronise the time
> encapsulated.  In line with the intention of 0x10..0x13 I left this out

That would again put definitions of trust into the protocol.  OpenPGP
has always abstained from defining what trust is.

> The term 'notary seal' is a bit confusing because the strength and
> implications of such seals differ strongly between countries.

Ditto.

> The term Third Party is used a lot for key escrow parties.  Is it an idea
> to rename this to an "Independent Confirmation signature"?

Fine with me.

> In 5.2.3.25, the definition of "Signature Target" is not very accurate.
> Notably, it is not very strict about the contents being hashed.

I recall that we discussed this a long time ago but can't remember the
details anymore.



Shalom-Salam,

   Werner