-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
And while we are at it, I would suggest to express V5 fingerprints
(as well
as key IDs) either in octal or in decimal. This is not a
cryptography issue
(*), but a usability issue on (typically mobile) devices with
numeric-only
keypads. As an added benefit, it would make the keyID ~ telephone
number
metaphor more sustainable.
For such a decision, OpenPGP could earn the ethernal gratitude of
the entire
telecom industry.
I think we should not tie non SHA-1 fingerprints to V5 key ids.
I like the proposal someone had at one point that you have a syntax
that includes the hash number. Thus, a present fingerprint would become:
2:012356789ABCDEF...
A SHA-256 version would be:
8:FEDCBA987654.....
Within this, if you want a shorter version of the fingerprint, you
simply truncate the right-most portion (which "fixes" the present
mechanism).
Once you have this mechanism, a way to do a fingerprint in decimal or
octal is pretty easy. It's also easy for telephones to map the ':' to
a '*' (e.g.).
I leave the exact signal for a different radix as an exercise for
someone to suggest.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFH2t9csTedWZOD3gYRAh/RAJ9nrAV4gIWAGII7gXBhyrxBj+PaKgCg2pCe
5f7X5YRUDDdgg+vmlDw+siU=
=r0IL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----