IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Version 5 key and fingerprint proposal

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Thu, 16 March 2017 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.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 A835B12960F for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.99 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ihtfp.com
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 dQr8BvGjQUzk for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (mail2.ihtfp.org [IPv6:2001:470:e448:1::3a11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EAF71295B3 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F271E2042 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:25:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12079-07 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from securerf.ihtfp.org (unknown [IPv6:fe80::ea2a:eaff:fe7d:235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mocana.ihtfp.org", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A915E203A for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:25:37 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ihtfp.com; s=default; t=1489677937; bh=kUMh6uA6+obHM8SYZebLSFI4Hn17h7H3U0B1p2SqNLU=; h=From:To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Bh0MGeiVcOxExTL11+zoLxWePv2RZNdRJXnMk1o/RQh2zcqQpH/95fma68sW+QmRS 9hfSwjgnypbfVgYiEqSu1LEl2t+tZrFeZqqVbk2A/+Y2wwtWH9Li3AWJ96rO+UzZok ToX86f+QRLFvSoyg1iGcjIduIOqEAyioMiTTDup8=
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by securerf.ihtfp.org (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id v2GFPalY024344; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:25:36 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
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> <87varhculg.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <2BC88897-B957-4E4E-B109-DFF4EFA14B4D@icloud.com> <87mvco40xf.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87mvclwjih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:25:36 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87mvclwjih.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> (Werner Koch's message of "Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:25:42 +0100")
Message-ID: <sjmr31xtf9r.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/k4202_yeCBsoExlnWCn5VwwCUR8>
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 15:25:46 -0000

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:17, wk@gnupg.org said:
>
>> What do others think:
>>
>>  - Use SHA-256 and truncated to 200 bits
>>  - Use SHA-512 and truncated to 200 bits
>>  - Anything else
>
> No opinions?

Considering these days I work with very small systems, I'm in favor of
SHA2-256 because in my environments it's much faster.  Even if SHA2-512
is faster on larger systems, the clock-wall time still gives SHA2-256
the advantage when you compare 256 vs 512 on a 16MHz 16-bit platform
versus a 32/64-bit 2GHz platform.

I.e., it doesn't bother me if SHA2-256 is a fraction of a millisecond
slower on a large system, but it's tens or hundreds of milliseconds
faster on the constrained device.

Thanks,

> Shalom-Salam,
>
>    Werner

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email