[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Secret key transport
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:56:37PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> The difference is that GnuPG prints a warning when it could not do
> this automatic conversion because of missing self-signatures. PGP is
> (probably more appropriately) quiet. I think you are interpreting
> that warning message as a rejection.
Maybe. I will double-check.
> All binding signatures bind to the public key. There is no such thing
> as a secret key binding signature.
> Here's a minimal-change proposal:
> Rename section 10.1 from "Transferable Public Keys" to "Transferable
> Keys", and add to the end of the section:
> Secret keys may be transferred in the same manner and format as
> public keys by replacing any public key packets with the
> corresponding secret key packets and and public subkey packets with
> the corresponding secret subkey packets.
I support this proposal.