From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DFA6C00140 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 17:07:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229684AbiHBRHs (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2022 13:07:48 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40126 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229526AbiHBRHr (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2022 13:07:47 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-x833.google.com (mail-qt1-x833.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0164339BBB for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 10:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x833.google.com with SMTP id b21so10760126qte.12 for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 10:07:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc; bh=6iYgJx1j8ZAFmZN+rJNmYGmMPmy0JicrvsAPug+G8to=; b=arrN66fcx5wmQ4e9+DB/J4OegStyVrVZaNZd2gDnH14ow8qoHFAJ98xCwc10dryqiH PwgpausrHSvt2oeqVHG5AQO+qExeZX7KCPmQTHDRiYGC7mMgKu8ao8dRjPhwUnxN4reT hWoNtSrOE5sioo7yx+TYW5Jc6NGNQP7adYRi8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=6iYgJx1j8ZAFmZN+rJNmYGmMPmy0JicrvsAPug+G8to=; b=1vEHv8B12PUVhhgq79CQ16BHcdk8JYOvSnqs1RN/V+Cfod7WexVlCx87KGx2jWJM6v K+CpR1P4BLJ7O2SbA1nNZCV0EsUrKNhQQ1gTBWiV/xrS1WoVm7FcsRu2nBk1HXSvgB6q 7iYkOlVrlYZAVdz6xqMsQ1VSUv/GV6jqtcNIxzy8skII5GTT2nDxPzT2JDOW/h8cvA13 ZqQf2FzQm7YkR10p6KcgicyRvwLuOXJAnt9mQjOkWih8/FT90K44z8KPFxDDKflYss11 6resFEKYpiJGEcVnnrt7vf83P4Yi9QAs3Gc6GkpPzB+AKKV0SUyn9mO4tnzSq29/9Gzx aqgw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8VcDxXtpDiHscg3gEF77hYeMsurpSZDkfw6S1SQfM4QxkSJ9nq W0VeWcqmcaX9JBSdUL9UF1WIxfnJugATe1PW X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tLzqSsLOMhbc4MMreTdenPj/0I/eaai6L2Pfb70hcXUOiPV21mlgoIzsV68cxAkC/TfTctBw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:cf:b0:31f:28ac:a8d0 with SMTP id p15-20020a05622a00cf00b0031f28aca8d0mr20050650qtw.581.1659460065100; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 10:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nitro.local (host-142-67-156-76.public.eastlink.ca. [142.67.156.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r11-20020ae9d60b000000b006b5869c1525sm10927961qkk.21.2022.08.02.10.07.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 02 Aug 2022 10:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 13:07:42 -0400 From: Konstantin Ryabitsev To: Wu XiangCheng Cc: Jonathan Corbet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] maintainer-pgp-guide: use key terminology consistent with upstream Message-ID: <20220802170742.uujvf7clztfpasqu@nitro.local> References: <20220727-docs-pgp-guide-v1-0-c48fb06cb9af@linuxfoundation.org> <20220727-docs-pgp-guide-v1-1-c48fb06cb9af@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 09:12:35PM +0800, Wu XiangCheng wrote: > They use "primary key" in their interface and document. > > For example in their .po file: > > msgid "Note: The public primary key and all its subkeys will be deleted.\n" > msgid "using subkey %s instead of primary key %s\n" > > Also in gnupg/doc/gpg.texi: > > By specifying the key to export using a key ID or a fingerprint > suffixed with an exclamation mark (!), a specific subkey or the > primary key can be exported. This does not even require that the key > has the authentication capability flag set. > > Using the new word? Hmm.. this documentation must be newer than I last looked at it. Still, I prefer to call it the "certify" key, because "primary key" is also ambiguous: - "primary" key suggests that other keys are "secondary", which they are not - "primary key" clashes with "primary identity" in an important way -- you can change your primary identity by adding a new one and assigning it a primary status, but you cannot add a new certify key So, I'm sticking with the wording "certify key". > > +The **[C]** (certification) key is often called the "master" key, but > > Maybe "The key carrying the **[C]**" is better, match the following > description. As your said, gpg always create a [SC] key by default. Sure, I will consider this change. > > +1. All subkeys are fully independent from each other. If you lose a > > + private subkey, it cannot be restored or recreated from any other > > + private key on your chain. > > +2. With the exception of the Certify key, there can be multiple subkeys > > + with identical capabilities (e.g. you can have 2 valid encryption > > + subkeys, 3 valid signing subkeys, but only one valid certification > > + subkey). All subkeys are fully independent -- a message encrypted to > > + one **[E]** subkey cannot be decrypted with any other **[E]** subkey > > + you may also have. > > +3. A single subkey may have multiple capabilities (e.g. your **[C]** key > > + can also be your **[S]** key). > > Reminding the limit of algorithms' capabilities by the way? > Like: As long as under the algorithm's capabilities. I think that's unnecessary in this context. Yes, ed25519 keys cannot be used for encryption (that's for cv25519 keys), but I'm just illustrating that a single key can have multiple capabilities, so just leaving it at "may" is enough here, imo. Thank you for your suggestions. Regards, Konstantin