[Webfunds-devel] Re: GnuPG key generation fails for new userid's

Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:12:18 -0400

Edwin Woudt wrote:

> Why not use an RFC822 comment for this purpose? That way it still is a
> valid RFC822 e-mail address and thus the userid follows the convention. A
> comment uses () instead of [], thus an example userid would be:
> 
>     Edwin Woudt (cert) <edwin@webfunds.org>
> 
> instead of:
> 
>     Edwin Woudt [cert] <edwin@webfunds.org>
> 
> Would that be acceptable as a strong indication?

It's a valid way of looking at things, and I did think about that,
but thought it not strong enough.  The thing that slows me down
is that saying that e-mail defines this a comment is unfortunate
language from a legal point of view.  That makes it akin to a side
note in a contract - which has no contractual strength.  Certainly,
if I was the attacking lawyer, I would say that it had no bearing
on the issue because it is a comment, the real contract was in the
signature, and the sig alone.

So I still prefer the non-compatible method, as it starts from a
position of having to define its own meaning, carries no baggage.
If we develop enough customary practice, then that can stand as
contract in and of itself (this is called customary law).

Which brings in issues of documentation and so forth.  Really, I
need to write a paper on all this stuff and develop the web doco,
but I also need to make sure that the model is right, bedded in,
flows smoothly from a practical point of view, before spending too
much time selling it to the world :)  Hence these discussions are
useful for teasing out the hidden assumptions!

-- 
iang