On 10/02/11 04:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, October 02, 2011, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 10/01/2011 06:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, I'm taking this as "5 years is fine by us". :-)
>>>
>>> And the recommended procedure for rotating keys seems to be (1) generate
>>> a new key and (2) make as many people as you can sign it before the old
>>> one expires, right?
>>>
>>
>> (3) revoke the old key with a status code of "no longer in use", or just
>> let it expire.
>>
>>>> Some people have decided to opt for an unlimited key, but that
>>>> *requires* that you have a way to revoke the old key, which is why we
>>>> are considering a key revocation escrow service.
>>>
>>> That service will be necessary anyway in case some keys are lost or
>>> compromised.
>>>
>>> I wonder what the procedure of restoring kernel.org access in case one
>>> has lost keys is supposed to be?
>>
>> Get a new key and get it re-signed.
> 
> Hmm.  That doesn't seem very practical if someone doesn't live close
> to any other core kernel developers.
> 
> What number of signatures on the key will be regarded as sufficient?
> 
>> We can work out specific details at KS.
> 
> Well, the KS is going to be busy time this year I suppose. :-)
> 
> What about people who haven't been invited to the KS?

They (we) should start building a web of trust with local key signings.
I'm already working on that in Portland, Oregon.

-- 
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***