On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Jorgen Cederlof wrote:
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 16:04:00 +0100 From: Jorgen Cederlof jc@lysator.liu.se To: wotsap-updates@lists.lysator.liu.se Subject: [Wotsap-updates] Welcome and new .wot file format Sender: wotsap-updates-admin@lists.lysator.liu.se
Hi list,
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~jc/wotsap/wotfileformat-0.2.txt
If you find bugs or typos, please tell me.
May I suggest that the wot version is encoded into the signatures file. I suggest to use the first 4 bytes in the 'signature' files to denote
0 w 1 o 3 t 4 version-index, for example 0 -> 0.1 1 -> 0.2 2 -> 0.2.1 3 -> 0.3
This way the file is 'self contained' and the software can find out how to interpret the file, without resort to the WOTSAP files. If we run out of numbers, the scheme can be extended.
I assume no 0.1 'signatures file starts with 'wot0'.
Any other scheme is ok, as long as the version can be found in the wot file. The first 16 bytes could just be the plain text version id, for instance.
----------------------
Is it the intention do drop revoked keys form the strong set ? Is it the intention do drop expired keys form the strong set ?
Just curious:
Why keep keys/uids that aren't self signed ? Doesn't Gnupg just drop them ? In general, I think the strong set should be as clean as possible. It makes easier to do analysis and it is an incentive for people to keep there keys in order.
Jörgen
regards
Henk Penning
---------------------------------------------------------------- _ Henk P. Penning, Computer Systems Group R Uithof CGN-A232 _/ _ Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / _/ \ Padualaan 14, 3584CH Utrecht, the Netherlands F +31 30 251 3791 _/ _/ http://www.cs.uu.nl/staff/henkp.html M penning@cs.uu.nl _/