IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Version 5 key and fingerprint proposal

Thijs van Dijk <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl> Thu, 16 March 2017 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B072129556 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.334
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=inurbanus.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gizBnln0g3qN for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x234.google.com (mail-ua0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26C69129566 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x234.google.com with SMTP id q7so27851328uaf.2 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inurbanus.nl; s=google-inurb; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3W9nIkP2FHu+nSq3GaZfWKgO4UAcg4htaAaj6uuGu/o=; b=KenozM7Q7fY/O0SLnWCZzUcRdkbDauxEuGkn74kOD06/S1VadK8fgi7CtRbP39dote 2gvUm62P269R56BXHr/Nu9+zt+h8RRfJhH6xfogislySTGRUqyv6fMMaySTs57VJeThZ RTtAbnHH/4S4Ha+rtiuQqGOdY91DGnQQm2bcw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3W9nIkP2FHu+nSq3GaZfWKgO4UAcg4htaAaj6uuGu/o=; b=hPimNzLzaBryeAU25+KljiqfqV7ekz7xrKBYdbs3XU/z7O9ovfDZCQDykacr/j+qmc CTGw58GFjwAkrjezG+5RfS7kaZPjc89FQYIdk22GhZYLxXbCXh7WcOuQ0S5m3Fc6jsXM 5R+RwPuMNoKzTDXUzbh3xiCmFNrzVLt4Mz5256dECK+F9cV8Mm3+8/sQ0yIJOSzYRetl PMkchU05aO/6CP484f5egDxYNWH3CoJCkG7B+IXBZgRFXSycy/v+AdmCGZdxquy47Vg3 +bU9s9Ki6xmkewWGJhdQBoc92auncEHJNdSEnXryuSTAHj8QgKlSv99WedPywITxD7DJ TNFg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2M2ClgLw7CtGfjf5h5WLIKUB1D70VGEn54M2yzYY8/mdPlvlhXIpgv1x73nxqRDw/gtjdBIEChNmopMA==
X-Received: by 10.159.37.144 with SMTP id 16mr4014564uaf.80.1489676631833; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.124.2 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170316140346.GA3816@fedora-23-dvm>
References: <20170309174531.GB2@hashbang.sh> <20170309184745.GC2@hashbang.sh> <CABcZeBMhpXy-e9Mtp8LwfqfAVW_ks3JBw1H2N3H_0c4gpQBqpg@mail.gmail.com> <DAC23A62-14BF-4AAA-8E52-09029B279E8F@icloud.com> <87varhculg.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <2BC88897-B957-4E4E-B109-DFF4EFA14B4D@icloud.com> <87mvco40xf.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87mvclwjih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20170316133414.GA3503@fedora-23-dvm> <8737edwd4b.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20170316140346.GA3816@fedora-23-dvm>
From: Thijs van Dijk <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:03:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CADGaDpE+73AsAbgc-AZBH58h0K6ei8mHLu=3dT0mSEb=W6KfEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1139ba6678eba0054ada5ed0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/CKRpa9E5zzOdSa-4MCM695Dzy2w>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Version 5 key and fingerprint proposal
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:04:17 -0000

On 16 March 2017 at 15:03, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> Well, if that's the case, there's no reason to use less than a full 256
> bits,
> either SHA256 directly, or SHA512 truncated in the standard way.


Sure there is. From earlier in this thread:

On 8 March 2017 at 08:02, Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> wrote:

> Due to the use of the 'Issuer Fingerpint' the signatures grow in size by
> 22 octets which is substantal for ECC signatures.  With the full V5
> fingerprint this would increase to 25 octets (34 - 9 from the not used
> 'Issuer' subpacket).  By truncating the fingerprint we will only use 18
> octets which is even a saving compared to V4 keys.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email