On 2012-08-01 00:53, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On 07/31/2012 06:04 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
... > > If anything, the current sks implementation is violating RFC 4880, which > clearly states that transferable public key certificates contain: > > - After each Subkey packet, one Signature packet, plus optionally a > revocation > Hi Daniel, What complicate it a bit is that an argument can be made that this, from 11.1 [0], "The essential elements of a transferable public key are as follows:" is a non-exhaustive list, i.e. it is more of a minimum requirement than a full spec (by the use of the word "essential"). [0] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4880.txt -- ---------------------------- Kristian Fiskerstrand http://www.sumptuouscapital.com Twitter: @krifisk ---------------------------- Corruptissima re publica plurimæ leges The greater the degeneration of the republic, the more of its laws ---------------------------- This email was digitally signed using the OpenPGP standard. If you want to read more about this The book: Sending Emails - The Safe Way: An introduction to OpenPGP security is now available in both Amazon Kindle and Paperback format at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006RSG1S4/ ---------------------------- Public PGP key 0xE3EDFAE3 at http://www.sumptuouscapital.com/pgp/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
