[openpgp] Re: Review of draft-ietf-openpgp-replacementkey-04

Andrew Gallagher <[email protected]> Mon, 11 Aug 2025 23:47:19 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.openpgp
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On 7 Aug 2025, at 08:30, Falko Strenzke <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Am 07.08.25 um 01:46 schrieb Andrew Gallagher:
>>> I don't like the term "Inverse Relationship" for the 0x40 bit.  Inverse
>>> implies that one thing is the "normal" way, but it's not obvious from
>>> looking at it which way should be which.  If we go with "preferred" and
>>> "deprecated" to describe the keys in the grouping, and this bit being
>>> set indicates that the current key is preferred, let's just call it
>>> "preferred" or something.
>> Hm, but does “preferred" mean that *this* certificate is preferred, or the one(s) being referenced? I think “forward” and “inverse” are clearer, because they indicate a property of the relationship, not a property of either end. And a “normal” reference is surely one that directs the reader from old to new, deprecated to preferred? I am open to alternative suggestions though.
> Maybe then instead use "forward" and "backward"? That would be clear antonyms and in my view also suggesting intuitively the image of "something old" pointing to "something new" similarly as Andrew argues. But I think it makes sense to avoid the rather generic "inverse”.
> 

I have substituted the terms “deprecated” and “backward” for “original” and “inverse” respectively in the editor’s copy. I have not however substituted “preferred” for “replaced” because the text refers to a preferred ordering of the deprecated (original) certificates, and I think we should avoid overloading the term. I think “replacement” is fine, this is the “Key Replacement” mechanism, after all. :-)

Thanks,
A

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)