IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Summary of WG status

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Mon, 14 August 2017 15:39 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 DAE38132376 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 08:39:43 -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 5AjuG45a6uP2 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 08:39:39 -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 495B1132391 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 08:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14FFE2049; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:39:35 -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 17540-10; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:39:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from securerf.ihtfp.org (unknown [IPv6:fe80::530:248d:f760:bb62]) (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 61FCFE2039; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:39:15 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ihtfp.com; s=default; t=1502725155; bh=1wKKn0TN6CQ2LwYQRqYZ9VZWxkuUjdVlzOANmKUNu5E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=djnabwyvmxb9gafJZMR4jSztdzXG9qMMcHgfZUVWSLFRelr8sO5/APJ1xjxbRKfuT j9vZTUQF0tl1/CvQFKVDbuGtjSVHPRih1u6Jl7OsmOkXSK5AxRdq3veNQGa3OiA7Pt +4p7WBzwEz2skwjdHq4EkGVueKB5caIzwrlrhiOg=
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by securerf.ihtfp.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v7EFd9Gw029022; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:39:09 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: "Robert J. Hansen" <rjh@sixdemonbag.org>
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <20170712223852.zmnvw4iwvziqsynq@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> <20170810014751.erufvruh2lm5cdpe@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> <1b68dbbb-38ac-6370-fe20-76be795b2634@sixdemonbag.org> <20170811202924.yiwzjom3tag3ivkk@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> <a2f2973f-2b34-5e07-2651-a1910d992c6a@sixdemonbag.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:39:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <a2f2973f-2b34-5e07-2651-a1910d992c6a@sixdemonbag.org> (Robert J. Hansen's message of "Sat, 12 Aug 2017 11:03:34 -0400")
Message-ID: <sjmefsef9b6.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (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/uZt4DOQB876NvC94bJjKBQj-518>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Summary of WG status
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: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:39:44 -0000

"Robert J. Hansen" <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> writes:

>> Okay.  Let me offer a fingerprint proposal, then: SHA-256.  Basically,
>> identical to Werner's proposal, except with the full SHA-256.  That
>> resolves all the issues over truncation.  SHA-256 is mandatory to
>> implement.
>> 
>> Opinions or counterproposals?
>
> It's simple, easy to implement, and can be done right now.  I'm in favor.
>
> Months upon months have gone by with us largely twiddling our thumbs
> while we talk about the perfect fingerprint format.  Full SHA256 isn't
> perfect but it'll do, and we're now at the point where a good it'll-do
> solution is the magic bullet we need.

No objection from me.

-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