On 01/18/2011 05:43 PM, David Shaw wrote: > No, this would be another use of the existing public/secret key version registry. We already have a registry that covers key versions. [...] > Sorry - I wasn't clear enough. Rather than using a notation, I was saying that if that we should define a "true" subpacket (not a notation) > for this, but define the subpacket in a flexible enough way that we won't be throwing the subpacket away (or having to maintain it just for V4) when V5 comes. ok, i understand what you're saying. I'm game for either approach. Here's a proposal: i'll start with an issuer-fpr@... notation that will use the exact value (version byte, fpr) that we expect to be the content of the new subpacket type, demonstrate it, and then use that experience to draft an update to RFC 4880 and apply for a new subpacket allocation if it seems to make sense. Is it kosher to use a notation this way instead of using an explicitly experimental subpacket type? --dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature