>> Why modify the standard? > > Because signature notations are supposed to be standardized. There aren't any > yet though. Nobody suffers from defining a string to mark timestamp-only > signatures. That is easily parsable both for software and for humans. > Timestamps are an important application. I don't think that there is any equal > solution. > > Furthermore this might make signature notations more popular. IMHO they are a > very useful nonetheless nearly unused feature.
Good points (I think "notations are supposed to be standardized" is a bit strong, but there is use in certain standardized notations so I agree with your point overall). So, um, let's just start using a non-standardized notation in the "@" namespace and then wait for standardization? We just need to agree on a name, maybe Werner can confirm we are free to use "timestamp-o...@gnupg.org"? What would the value mean? -- 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
