> Do you want to promote the uniform usage of notations (perhaps later taken > over into IETF namespace) via this mailinglist and an officially maintained > list of notations in the gnupg.org namespace or not? > > If you want to avoid notations in gnupg.org then the discussion is finished > anyway.
As the last post I will contribute to this thread (unless we get a positive response from Werner), here's a summary of where we are: 1. timestamp-o...@gnupg.org. If this notation exists on the signature, that indicates it is a timestamp signature. 1 a. Should we set this notation critical, non-critical, or user's choice? We also had the suggestion of doing two signatures, one w/ critical and one w/out. The idea was that the user will be inclined to look more closely. 1 b. On what signature types may this notation be defined? 0x00 definitely, what else? 2. Suggestion: timestamp-resolut...@gnupg.org. Value is number of seconds of error in both directions. 2 a. Thinking about it, this should be two notations: timestamp-er...@gnupg.org, and timestamp-resolut...@gnupg.org (the difference being: error = clock drift, while resolution = fixed intervals, e.g. for datestamps resolution would be 86400 and timestamp would be at 00:00). 2 b. Another alternative is timestamp-inter...@gnupg.org = <ISO 8601 time interval> which describes the interval during which the timestamp was made, accounting for precision and error, and leaving no room for interpretation of the interval, but making it the signer's duty to compute this interval. 2 c. Again, where may this be defined? At least all of # 1 b. 3. Other stuff? Just so that Werner has a summary of what we've discussed, to base a decision on. -- Jerome Baum tel +49-1578-8434336 email jer...@jeromebaum.com web www.jeromebaum.com -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
