[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gnupg-devel
Subject:    Re: key sig notation data in --with-colon mode?
From:       Marcus Brinkmann <marcus.brinkmann () ruhr-uni-bochum ! de>
Date:       2005-10-04 20:57:27
Message-ID: 87irwd6lvs.wl%marcus.brinkmann () ruhr-uni-bochum ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

At Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:01:42 +0200,
Werner Koch wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 03:19:38 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann said:

> >   Suggestion: How about
> >   --add-subpacket 20:3:24:%80%00%00%00%00%09%00%07MyFOO@FOOABCDEFG
> >   as a command line option?
> 
> I don't see the need for it.  This puts too much OpenPGP knowledge
> into GPGME. 

I first thought so, too, but you can just as well take the same
definition as OpenPGP uses as GnuPG's native interface and document it
in doc/DETAILS.  If you squint your eyes the right way, the
differences are merely syntactical.  That means that gpgsm can easily
dump OpenPGP like subpackets for notation data, if so is desired.

My main concern here is consistency: I should be able to read and
write exactly the same notation data.  If I can read a notation data,
I want to be able to write it, essentially making a 1:1 copy.

Reading and writing subpackets (notation data, policy URLs) should be
very similar.  I think that is just a sanity requirement.  Currently,
this is not met.  David said the OpenPGP raw format is the one to go
for.  You seem to say the NOTATION_* format is the one to go for.  I
will feel better when you both agree on the subject :)

Thanks,
Marcus



_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
Gnupg-devel@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]