[openpgp] Re: Ideas for alternative user interface terms for OpenPGP structures

On 26/02/2026 10:37, Kai Engert wrote:
> 
> I have been struggling with the use of the term "certificate" in the 
> context of OpenPGP. My pain points are:
> - it implies third party certification even when there is none,
>    which is often missing in OpenPGP transferable keys.
> - it overlaps with the established use of the term with S/MIME,
>    which is particularly relevant in applications that offer
>    both OpenPGP and S/MIME functionality to users.

It is possible to have an X509 "self-signed certificate" which is 
closely analogous to an OpenPGP certificate with no third-party 
signatures. The primary conceptual difference between an OpenPGP 
certificate and an X509 one is that OpenPGP certificates that share a 
primary key can be merged into a single object, while X509 requires 
separate certificate objects for each certification.

Have you had feedback where users have been confused between X509 and 
OpenPGP uses of the terminology?

> The alternative term "OpenPGP public key" also isn't perfect, because 
> the objects that users work with contain more than just the public key.

I think you'll find little disagreement on this point. :-)

> I propose the term "Message Crypto Patterns" (or Mail Crypto Patterns) 
> (MCP) as a user understandable abstraction as a replacement for 
> "transferable public key" or "OpenPGP certificate.

I fear "pattern" is both novel in a cryptography context and generic, 
and so falls between two stools. Cryptographers will be confused but 
users will not be enlightened.

Beware also that "MCP" is already a (trendy!) acronym for Model Context 
Protocol.

Thanks,
A

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