Re: Fixing the secret keys, and a small apology

[Jon Callas <[e-mail]>]

At 9:43 AM +0200 9/5/01, Werner Koch wrote:

>This is fine with me.
>
>Another question is the format.  Should we include only the public
>parameters or more stuff in the MDC?  A solution I would like to see
>is to just hash the fingerprint of the key along with the secret
>parameters.  I predict that in future, implementations will use the
>fingerprint to identify a key (and not just the keyID) and therefore
>it is steadily available.

As a couple people noted, I was probably too glib. The byte isn't actually
part of the S2K, it's a marker that says that an S2K follows.

I think that 254 would denote that we have an S2K and a hash. Let's not
call it an MDC, because we're going to get confused if we do. The questions
I see are:

Hash of what?

Is it inside or outside the envelope?

Where is it placed?


Are there any developers that want to come up with a design?

	Jon