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?

Rafael