On Jan 17, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Would there be any objection to a new subpacket type for OpenPGPv4 that > would include the remaining 96 bits of the issuer's fingerprint? (the > "high 96" proposal) > > Alternately, what about a new subpacket type that simply includes the > entire 160 bits of the issuer's fingerprint? (the "full fingerprint" > proposal) I like this idea. I would do it as "full fingerprint" myself. The difference in storage between 160 bits and 96 bits is all of 8 bytes. I think the simplicity of being able to say the whole fingerprint is in there is worth a measly 8 bytes. Do we necessarily need a new subpacket type for this? It could pretty easily be a notation. David