On 06/15/2011 04:56 AM, Hauke Laging wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2011, 03:16:16 schrieb Jerome Baum:
>> 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? > > Shall I repeat the proposal, or is that a question to Werner? :-) > > "The signer makes no statement about the content of the signed data (may not > even have been able to read it) but only confirms its existance at the time > of > the given timestamp." I think it is a mistake to make this particular notation, when signature type 0x40 already exists: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#page-21 --------------- 0x40: Timestamp signature. This signature is only meaningful for the timestamp contained in it. --------------- I'm happy with the proposal to start using notations more, and creating a culture of publishing well-defined semantics around them; i just don't think this particular goal is well-served by notations, since it is already in the core protocol specification. Regards, --dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
