On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 22:55, nicholas.c...@gmail.com said: > But one thing that might be helpful to explain is this: what needs to > be in the V5 key format aside from the change in fingerprint hash? > Aside from that issue, the V4 key format seems to have been resilient. > What are the other issues that need to be addressed?
We need to check the WG archives for a list. What I can remember are: - A new fingerprint scheme - A hard (non-changeable) expiration time - A different way to express timestamps (Y2038 annoyance and the hard Y2106 problem). An 8601 timestamp string should do. - Get rid of the old and optional protection schemes or even switch to a modern standard one. There are related things we need to change for signatures packets. It might also be a good time to replace PKCS#1.5, Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users