There was a proposal that floated around that defined an extended fingerprint
to be an algorithm number followed by the actual bits.
For example, ASCII-fied 23:ABCDEF0123...FF. There's an obvious binary
representation. There's an obvious way to truncate that as well -- just decide
if you truncate little-endian or big. (Personally, despite being a
little-endian bigot, this is a place where network byte order is even to me the
obvious win.)
The major advantage of this is that you can define it and then you never have
to change it again. We don't have to have any arguments over what hash function
is proper to use, etc. An implementation can decide to support or not support
whatever.
Jon
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp