On 06/22/2010 02:00 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
What do you think local signatures are, and what do you think they
mean? (And no, I'm not trying to be snarky, you're asking about
intuition, so it makes sense to address the base assumptions.)
non-exportable certifications are simply certifications
On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 06/21/2010 06:32 PM, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
I see that there is currently the import-option import-local-sigs
which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:27:46 -0400, David Shaw ds...@jabberwocky.com wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Can you elaborate on the usage you're describing?
I'm thinking of a situation involving three people: Alice, Bob, and Charlie.
Alice has met Bob in
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:51:58 -0400, Jameson Rollins
jroll...@finestructure.net wrote:
I think the situation Daniel points out is one of the better usages for
local signatures, and probably the main reason for having them in the
first place.
Actually, looking at the RFC 4880 now, I see that
I see that there is currently the import-option import-local-sigs
which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
It seems to me that it would be helpful to have a variant of this, which
would only allow import of local signatures where the corresponding
secret key was
On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
I see that there is currently the import-option import-local-sigs
which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
It seems to me that it would be helpful to have a variant of this, which
would only allow import of
On 06/21/2010 06:32 PM, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
I see that there is currently the import-option import-local-sigs
which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
It seems to me that it would be helpful to have a variant of
