Re: Secret key transport

[nagydani@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Daniel A. Nagy)]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:56:37PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:

> The difference is that GnuPG prints a warning when it could not do
> this automatic conversion because of missing self-signatures.  PGP is
> (probably more appropriately) quiet.  I think you are interpreting
> that warning message as a rejection.

Maybe. I will double-check.
 
> All binding signatures bind to the public key.  There is no such thing
> as a secret key binding signature.

I know.
 
> Here's a minimal-change proposal:
> 
> Rename section 10.1 from "Transferable Public Keys" to "Transferable
> Keys", and add to the end of the section:
> 
>     Secret keys may be transferred in the same manner and format as
>     public keys by replacing any public key packets with the
>     corresponding secret key packets and and public subkey packets with
>     the corresponding secret subkey packets.

I support this proposal.

-- 
Daniel