Re: [openpgp] Followup on fingerprints

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:53 PM, ianG <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 29/07/2015 16:06 pm, Werner Koch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:31, [e-mail] said:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Werner Koch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> OpenPGP does not specify a user interface but the wire format.
>>>> Obviously we use the most compact format there which is the plain binary
>>>> format.  The questions are
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That is how we used to work in the 1990s. Since then we have had to do
>>> internationalization and such.
>>>
>>
>> I can't see what internationalization has to do with the binary
>> representation of a fingerprint.  As I said RFC-4880 is about the wire
>> format and not about user interfaces: It tells how to compute a
>> fingerprint and that it is the 16 octet MD5 hash or the 20 octet SHA-1
>> hash.  Now that a fingerprint is printed like this
>>
>> pub   dsa2048/F2AD85AC1E42B367 2007-12-31 [expires: 2018-12-31]
>>        Key fingerprint = 8061 5870 F5BA D690 3336  86D0 F2AD 85AC 1E42
>> B367
>>
>> is the choice of the concrete implementation.  It is an interesting idea
>> to have a common way of representing fingerprints to the user or in an
>> URL but that is not in the scope of RFC-4800bis.
>>
>
>
> I thought we were agreed on all that and there was a separate draft that
> PHB had written that just covered fingerprints for the user?
>
> Ie, we've cut this out of 4880(bis) because it has merit but it doesn't
> belong there.
>
>
>
> iang (mystified, am I imagining this separate document?)


You are riight.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-udf-00

I will rename the next one with OpenPGP in the title so the search tools
can find it. The plan is a separate document that essentially only tracks
stuff related to OpenPGP but can be built on by others elsewhere.