On Fri, 29 May 2015 17:38, derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com said:
There is already an I-D on Ed25519. Because it has a different form
than the NIST curves it requires a different parameter. Is the
Well, the I-D is on EdDSA which is a different signature algorithm than
ECDSA. This is the reason why we need another public key algorithm
identifier. Although Ed25519 is currently the only defined curve for
use with EdDSA we should keep algorithms and curves separate.
intention to include that by value in RFC4880bis? (I'm certainly not
opposed to the answer being "yes" -- I just want us to be clear that
Obviously I would vote with yes, but it is not an issue right now.
There are other things on out TODO list which I consider easier to
decide and more important.
For example a new "Issuer Fingerprint" signature subpacket to be used in
favor of the "Issuer" signature subpacket (5.2.3.5). Even now, without
having settled for a new fingerprint format we could already start
defining that subpacket: It's length would be a sufficient indication on
whether this is the old or new fingerprint format (I don't expect a new
fingerprint format will stay at 20 octets).
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp