IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Version 5 key and fingerprint proposal

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Fri, 10 March 2017 10:12 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
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 D96AC12987A for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 02:12:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 9sIdbRxKlQWr for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 02:12:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (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 0D906129878 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 02:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.84_2 #1 (Debian)) id 1cmHXZ-0007xS-0y for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:12:53 +0100
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1cmHTI-0006Pa-6q; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:08:28 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Jon Callas <joncallas@icloud.com>
References: <87varlou5m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20170307230605.GA2@hashbang.sh> <87efy8ntcx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20170309174531.GB2@hashbang.sh> <20170309184745.GC2@hashbang.sh> <CABcZeBMhpXy-e9Mtp8LwfqfAVW_ks3JBw1H2N3H_0c4gpQBqpg@mail.gmail.com> <DAC23A62-14BF-4AAA-8E52-09029B279E8F@icloud.com>
Organisation: The GnuPG Project
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
OpenPGP: url=https://k.gnupg.net/80615870F5BAD690333686D0F2AD85AC1E42B367
Mail-Followup-To: Jon Callas <joncallas@icloud.com>, IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:08:27 +0100
In-Reply-To: <DAC23A62-14BF-4AAA-8E52-09029B279E8F@icloud.com> (Jon Callas's message of "Thu, 09 Mar 2017 14:01:10 -0800")
Message-ID: <87varhculg.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=mindwar_Fedayeen_freedom_Merlin_dictionary_Freeh_ASDIC_MIT-LL_condor"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/MwasZV1P7dRK711ZQcVd3_6qrO4>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Version 5 key and fingerprint proposal
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:12:57 -0000

On Thu,  9 Mar 2017 23:01, joncallas@icloud.com said:
> At the risk of sending this into a rathole, a viable alternative would
> be to use SHA512/t as a truncation function. It's got a well-defined

We had a discussion here on the merits of SHA-256 over SHA-512 with the
two arguments I already mentioned:

  - SHA-256 is much faster on smaller 32 bit systems
  - SHA-256 is anyway required to verify existing signatures.

An advantage of SHA-512 is that this would benefit an X25519-only based
implementation because that requires SHA-512 anyway.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email