IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Fingerprints

Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg> Mon, 13 April 2015 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <tom@ritter.vg>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F161A8AC6 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 qc8hy-Hmgj_Q for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) (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 6D69C1A8AC5 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wgyo15 with SMTP id o15so66918384wgy.2 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ritter.vg; s=vg; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=HkCgHz4EKaJZ4YHsaZLOC/+7JXGgHYMjMGG4/sTphSs=; b=ScGJUklW5YbdeI4LcGNC8PMEOIcYta5gtyMK+bq3R9FpDos1ZFClyDfbfzvqlY2wem O0yEsiIMKKVaG5qI5QM04tg7wpOa27fCFNTbUpXZu5mfiUJd6rljb/++W4cOk4WUDcgh aagVITgwdF4EIxIL72z0gMjVZ9Qm5ioEmOFEs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=HkCgHz4EKaJZ4YHsaZLOC/+7JXGgHYMjMGG4/sTphSs=; b=byrxxuQ5cvLgLGDqr3O1WKDyGD16hYbldNCJ0EnAmcP2TNV0Kec8YjrzjV51rpJlT1 b9n2zNDZqNJOJh9P7jV9bDCyoLG+Bnl+EnG0GU8Td5MWi0FdAfQ3lnREDILcyhMlZNme c2VItMgaAlTKlPKB85MME0k3jGASzl1PXeA2VjKZNYQfgOEb5Y8fzlUlt3cPf/viCdJz Qu4/zPCEvSBocQKTc45G/HTemODzQzqxUaVHiCUW0b92c9ajMprwOkFO4EgvFSDJwH/0 tW512PhwY4sb9KyYyyo/pcj+09e0Ofk2eQ14H0AKSpmUdbp8TrL1pCKBBDnyObODOfQW 7AYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmIWqfzagv+h42k0o9mes3sWX7nwITO+Z8qlcwclitvz9p8zMMIkZbapJ7+zDIq8mjldGRe
X-Received: by 10.180.81.104 with SMTP id z8mr4448581wix.5.1428894737080; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.141.137 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:11:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <sjmk2xkf2t8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
References: <CAMm+LwhbB+-MnGRBCvprgAGOuu+5CJ2rgod7EBGOQR5UNVrspQ@mail.gmail.com> <87y4m0ozlt.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <sjmk2xkf2t8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
From: Tom Ritter <tom@ritter.vg>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 22:11:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+cU71=M2JzBkJXgUYCgp=Q=0c_7UuZWY14myA6cpMRwKt+Hjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/naxVjUrx4WUAthyjmNPnoPOf7B4>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, "openpgp@ietf.org" <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Fingerprints
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 03:12:20 -0000

On 10 April 2015 at 09:58, Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> wrote:
> Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 15:23, phill@hallambaker.com said:
>>
>>> There is no need to have an algorithm field, a version field is
>>> sufficient because we should only be using one algorithm at a given
>>
>> Right.  However an algorithm field is as good as a version field because
>> they have the same purpose in this context.  An algorithm field saves us
>> a mapping to the actual algorithm.  Recall that OpenPGP uses an
>> one-octet indentifier and not an OID.
>
> I'm with Werner on this one.  There's not a significant difference
> between a version field and an algorithm field.  Either option adds a
> single byte to the data structure, but using a version field requires
> additional lookup map (from fingerprint version # to hash algorithm).

Well, say we choose SHA-3, and say Algorithm 1 is SHA-3.  In 5 years,
where we learned our lesson and want to hash a different set of data
for the fingerprint, but SHA-3 is still fine, wouldn't that be a
problem?

-tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email