On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 19:32:23 +0100, Henk P. Penning wrote:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Jorgen Cederlof wrote:
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. [...] This way the file is 'self contained' and the software can find out how to interpret the file, without resort to the WOTSAP files.
I had never intended the signatures part of a .wot file to be used on its own, and I can think of very few reasons to do so. Since the file format version is encoded in the WOTVERSION part, I see no reason to also include it in the signatures part. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Is it the intention do drop revoked keys form the strong set ? Is it the intention do drop expired keys form the strong set ?
Yes, that is the intention.
Why keep keys/uids that aren't self signed ? Doesn't Gnupg just drop them ?
Such keys are not supposed to be included. Did you find a key like that in the example 0.2 file?
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.
I agree fully.
Regards, Jörgen