[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Standardisation of User ID usage for Server Purposes



David Shaw wrote:

> Allow me to suggest that overloading the user ID field in such a
> drastic manner may not be the best way to go here.  If you make it too
> machine parsable, then it's not very human readable, and vice versa.
> The user ID field has been a RFC-(2)822 for more or less forever, and
> a key (even a key intended for special non-common purposes) that
> doesn't have such a user ID will cause confusion.

If used for server purposes I doubt it will cause confusion, and such
keys should not be used for email.

> Instead, however, I recommend you define a new User Attribute type.
> This is a user ID alternative that is part of the OpenPGP spec but is
> not restricted to text, or indeed, any particular format.  Up til now
> the only defined user attribute has been "image" (used to attach a
> picture to a key), but if you define a "TLS" or "server" type, you can
> have exactly the semantics you desire without interfering with the
> regular user ID.

Is there any problem with defining several types, ie town/city,
state/province, country etc?

Of course there would be a definite need for a 'DNS' or hostname type.

This would of course be more computer friendly, and there should be no
reason for any user id at all to be on these keys.

-- 

Best regards,
 Duane