On May 29, 2012, at 1:18 PM, Werner Koch wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2012 18:31, r...@sixdemonbag.org said: > >> Honestly, this seems like something to bring up to the IETF WG. The RFC >> already has a plethora of implementation recommendations: adding an >> implementation recommendation of "use long key IDs when possible" seems > > I bet that this will immediately start a discussion on a v5 key format > to fix this problem for “all” time. And obviously the suggestion will > then be to show the full, then, SHA-256 fingerprint.
No doubt. V5 is a rather nice way to handle the problem: if a new key format came about, it's reasonable that the "handle" used to refer to it is different. Just like when things went from v3 to v4 and the fingerprint format changed, people understood that these were two different key types and accepted that they would appear different in a UI. I daresay that designing a V5 key format might even be accomplished sooner than rooting out all the (now-incorrect) FAQs and general knowledge of people using OpenPGP to get them to use 64-bit key IDs instead of 32. ;) David _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
