IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Version 5 key and fingerprint proposal

Ben McGinnes <ben@adversary.org> Sun, 04 June 2017 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@adversary.org>
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 4BDC5129498 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 20:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.781
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.781 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 Vt4y_3P5fAIg for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 20:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from devious.adversary.org (ec2-52-29-175-128.eu-central-1.compute.amazonaws.com [52.29.175.128]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E84126B7F for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 20:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 13:43:22 +1000
From: Ben McGinnes <ben@adversary.org>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170604034322.vgzppevtpt2q5apv@adversary.org>
References: <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> <20170317011757.ymdzyv2clmxsea6p@genre.crustytoothpaste.net> <871stwti3n.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <7554DEA8-3298-419F-879F-A29D7881A83B@icloud.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="73xn5vnq4xmlbqgw"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7554DEA8-3298-419F-879F-A29D7881A83B@icloud.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170602 (1.8.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/vOoNhscdr9bmp6Td93JmCqMu630>
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: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:43:31 -0000

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:05:17AM -0700, Jon Callas wrote:
> My preference is to use SHA-512. My rationale is:
> 
> * Fingerprints of keys don't have to be computed continuously. They
> * can be computed ones and the result cached for a reasonably long
> * period of time. For every argument about speed on small machines,
> * there's an equal and opposite counter-argument about speed on
> * large machines. I've pulled my hands back several times from
> * saying more. I won't unless provoked. I think the better argument
> * is that speed of computing a fingerprint doesn't matter.
> 
> * If we use SHA-512, we extend the length of time before we have to
> * have this argument again.

Admittedly I was already leaning in favour of SHA-512, but this last
bit here pushed me over the line in spite of the issues affecting the
small machines faction.


Regards,
Ben

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status