Problem with faked-system-time option

[Jerome Baum]

How did we miss that?

(Mobile/Handy)

Am 15.06.2011 17:15 schrieb "Daniel Kahn Gillmor" <dkg at fifthhorseman.net>:

On 06/15/2011 04:56 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2011, 03:16:16 schrieb Jerome Ba...

>> We just need to agree on
>> a name, maybe Werner can confirm we are free to use
>> "timestamp-onl...
I think it is a mistake to make this particular notation, when signature
type 0x40 already exists:

 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#page-21

---------------
  0x40: Timestamp signature.
      This signature is only meaningful for the timestamp contained in
      it.
---------------

I'm happy with the proposal to start using notations more, and creating
a culture of publishing well-defined semantics around them; i just don't
think this particular goal is well-served by notations, since it is
already in the core protocol specification.

Regards,

       --dkg


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110615/2d85ed83/attachment.htm>