Return-Path: <frantz@pwpconsult.com>
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 E47C912DC7B
 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 dv89x9gzVchz for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>;
 Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net
 (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67])
 by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B787212DC4C
 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [173.75.83.83] (helo=Williams-MacBook-Pro.local)
 by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67)
 (envelope-from <frantz@pwpconsult.com>) id 1aq9Au-0007xl-IE
 for openpgp@ietf.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 21:00:56 -0400
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:00:51 -0700
From: Bill Frantz <frantz@pwpconsult.com>
To: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <sjmbn5e3na2.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
Message-ID: <r470Ps-10114i-FF371A5B16CB415486EB8C1D2128D626@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Mailsmith 2.4 (470)
X-ELNK-Trace: 3a5e54fa03f1b3e21aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec7919da346378ac443265b20a7da6374429350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 173.75.83.83
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/f4ijpjoLd8TYomMkxVT_vFMw_Ec>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Fingerprint requirements for OpenPGP
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: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:01:08 -0000

I have not heard anyone arguing that we don't need some form of=20
fingerprint that can be typed into a computer for comparison.=20
(Several have argued that eyeball comparison is error prone.)

Well, typing random data is error prone too. Perhaps we should=20
have some form of check digit(s) so the program processing the=20
type in can flag bad data entry and not confuse it with=20
fingerprint match failure.

Cheers - Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        | There are now so many exceptions to the
408-356-8506       | Fourth Amendment that it operates only by
www.pwpconsult.com | accident.  -  William Hugh Murray