On 07/12/2012 08:16 AM, Werner Koch wrote: > 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,
some other points (from memory):
* Issuer subpacket should use a full fingerprint, rather than a short keyID
* designated revoker signature should embed full key instead of
fingerprint.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
