-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Somebody signing messages as Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 6/2/09 11:02 AM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote: > > Somebody signing messages as Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> As I understood it, we were thinking that clients would generate a > >> simple key (not PGP) for use in session security. That key could be > >> signed with an OpenPGP key or X.509 cert if the user has such a beast, > >> but we would not introduce a dependency on OpenPGP or X.509. > > > > Instead you would introduce a dependency on some new key format of your > > invention? This does not seem to be a win. The benefit of supporting > > OpenPGP and X.509 keys is the formats are already standardised, well > > understood and supported, and widely depolyed. > > No, we would probably use DSA keys. We're not in the business of making > new key formats here. :)
So, IIRC, DSA is a valid key format for signing in OpenPGP... so is it just that you don't want to support multiple key formats / signing algos? - -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma Please see <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted. edition right joseph -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJKJWZhAAoJENEcKRHOUZzenZEP/jzbcX4VLrth11rqpkSR1bHT qGmmkaj+5eDlNsz/3KuEODORi7u8X9WtAW3AsIdFjPSh9ONDOeuyDh+ucBaQqWDa kb19bNK7BKHVixC8BxfTjDOR8Al6D1DWLMGu+QATTE0Pd/L9n8EcturNNR8AnG0L oUBWVz1+dT3Mtf2c+hgoCY8V22fYkq/UnNFL/VCC5Y1jn/mIT97/80DisiYDh84n g9Dt7qSwh54ptsGWNrvghYLwlnJm23finmpJASElaBg4TCuvRhZvOt/XqMg/wwLY IfTUHxVgtWjV9maeuyXRdiIsKjuIXuwm9nGQ0AKS0pwJNpsdBAWO3ClQ6Jam8yZG dAEIr1dovZ8jzk6HsABWAh4GocZhlaKDhoUXCFSlf3v7eXKwCRZYa9aFkRWXU5LE +CJrcoeE72HwuQfaM/WHRbHfE6WrLHfd8GNQbIh+aJfRXsWEHy5os1qKRAEAlsqS vFVTCJkrCli1F0dge6+hLB05z/92rdxujMAY0l7WdR62eNexvnpTuLo6FUfjO1H5 Jv4KzA9NBW9JdwAmyUVEsqnGwytMJvsmU86X+ky7wNAahm1TyWFj5bL43Te/sMBW UVbRJWtzgEHZS85GOHFRcVqapRDZQUxhsUUL2JtAGXmFBfP5NCY0h0wdi7MU+Qtq fYGuDfau3v/y2hLIlE8+ =/4eK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
