From nobody Sat Jun 3 20:43:33 2017 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Sat, 3 Jun 2017 20:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 13:43:22 +1000 From: Ben McGinnes To: openpgp@ietf.org Message-ID: <20170604034322.vgzppevtpt2q5apv@adversary.org> References: <20170309184745.GC2@hashbang.sh> <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: 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." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2017 03:43:31 -0000 --73xn5vnq4xmlbqgw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:05:17AM -0700, Jon Callas wrote: > My preference is to use SHA-512. My rationale is: >=20 > * 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. >=20 > * 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 --73xn5vnq4xmlbqgw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGzBAABCgAdFiEEt/D+dZOHQw3QxYvbf/LTcTXHVTwFAlkzgdoACgkQf/LTcTXH VTy6awwA6McitU42RCL6atB9+/QH9uARi5fNkFCS+eSXHFqOWVkI7t/tEd/vMFx6 x0KJupA3goH9PBNwJK59MP4L2xUu8TEbTNISnoU88rG9HpFeKiGOrCbtM9D/q826 joPTbbtMnP5T4Tw/3XdJ3yrcY7LISFb844Un0fLT2z0C4Q+T6y3uH1DUc8RnqnL4 PAc4CBGJpPYIqNDPdkdJRB5Mrsjzug8/abnVB1qplCN4hCKBGnU11EPPgqdicYNa VJND7D0Hb79OTvji1a7GnVE1gX2ixi/wqShU12GhGI8t5c86DDsMNbFhPQJQMAKO OhHpnAVNr0cNu/6XRp4cvm64aEMl0uGwBm6PWw2He1Y9JFYLhgvxu61JK+ULGb0l KLL17in5PlbXG2wogbq6UZzxQMJIw2u9ERoEgSiouP5lBEFVFyW9euCHlQ93uS2/ 1IDwQa5OrCfNviiamtdCQT8enF/gvGR2FCHwmIc8Qk9e+aels/OrOJ9WRKU1jq2j nXNTRPFZ =MDNN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --73xn5vnq4xmlbqgw-- From nobody Fri Jun 30 05:05:05 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: openpgp@ietf.org Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C7B126D73; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 05:05:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: Cc: openpgp@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.55.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <149882430335.4592.5542218238949434277@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 05:05:03 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [openpgp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-02.txt X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:05:03 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Open Specification for Pretty Good Privacy of the IETF. Title : OpenPGP Message Format Author : Werner Koch Filename : draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-02.txt Pages : 113 Date : 2017-06-30 Abstract: { Work in progress to update the OpenPGP specification from RFC4880 } This document is maintained in order to publish all necessary information needed to develop interoperable applications based on the OpenPGP format. It is not a step-by-step cookbook for writing an application. It describes only the format and methods needed to read, check, generate, and write conforming packets crossing any network. It does not deal with storage and implementation questions. It does, however, discuss implementation issues necessary to avoid security flaws. OpenPGP software uses a combination of strong public-key and symmetric cryptography to provide security services for electronic communications and data storage. These services include confidentiality, key management, authentication, and digital signatures. This document specifies the message formats used in OpenPGP. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc4880bis-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/