On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:33:10 +0200 Peter Lebbing <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13/10/14 18:17, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote: > > I suppose the revocation certificate being a kind of replacement of > > my public key. As it is bound to the fingerprint of a key pair it > > can mark the key pair revoked as a whole. I suppose such a key can > > never be activated again. This is somewhat opposed to a key pair > > with all of its identities being revoked. Some or all identities > > could later be activated again and - moreover - this key pair could > > later even get new identities not being revoked. > > > > I would greatly appreciate anybody to confirm or correct my rough > > understanding of the revocation certificate and process. > > I think that's a good way of summing it up. > > Cheers, > > Peter. > > PS: You could nitpick about "bound to the fingerprint", I think it > should be "bound to the public key itself". But it makes no real > difference, I'm just being fussy. > Thank you for your confirmation. Regards, Peter
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
