Re: Requiring self-signed uids? (was Re: PoP & Signer's User ID subpacket?)

[David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 09:13:41AM -0700, Len Sassaman wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, David Shaw wrote:
> 
> > > Simplicity is a good reason, as is the robustness of the OpenPGP system.
> >
> > I'm afraid I don't understand your response.  Simplicity is a good
> > reason to add complexity? (??)
> 
> I think that saying "all v4 primary keys are signature keys" actually
> simplifies things. You may disagree.

Ah, ok.  I didn't parse your response properly.

I'm of mixed feelings on the primary is a signing key issue.  There is
definite appeal to having all non-signature items in a key be bound
there by signatures.  As things stand now, subkeys are bound, but user
IDs/attributes might not be.  There is a nice annoyance attack in the
wait there.

I do wonder what this case would mean in regards to the discussion
though:

1) Generate a RSA sign+encrypt key.  Naturally the user ID on that key
   should have a self-signature.

2) Now change the key flags so that the primary is encrypt-only.

Is that an "encrypt-only" key?

David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3rc1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Key available at http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc

iD8DBQE/GCoN4mZch0nhy8kRAhyYAKC8qaI6HL4aPy1/xJJi04nM8ISc1QCdHs3X
NWg2+tNJl1n48jzhofMOTE0=
=mm0s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----