On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:53 PM, ianG <iang(_at_)iang(_dot_)org> wrote:
On 29/07/2015 16:06 pm, Werner Koch wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 16:31, phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com said:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Werner Koch <wk(_at_)gnupg(_dot_)org> wrote:
OpenPGP does not specify a user interface but the wire format.
Obviously we use the most compact format there which is the plain binary
format. The questions are
That is how we used to work in the 1990s. Since then we have had to do
internationalization and such.
I can't see what internationalization has to do with the binary
representation of a fingerprint. As I said RFC-4880 is about the wire
format and not about user interfaces: It tells how to compute a
fingerprint and that it is the 16 octet MD5 hash or the 20 octet SHA-1
hash. Now that a fingerprint is printed like this
pub dsa2048/F2AD85AC1E42B367 2007-12-31 [expires: 2018-12-31]
Key fingerprint = 8061 5870 F5BA D690 3336 86D0 F2AD 85AC 1E42
B367
is the choice of the concrete implementation. It is an interesting idea
to have a common way of representing fingerprints to the user or in an
URL but that is not in the scope of RFC-4800bis.
I thought we were agreed on all that and there was a separate draft that
PHB had written that just covered fingerprints for the user?
Ie, we've cut this out of 4880(bis) because it has merit but it doesn't
belong there.
iang (mystified, am I imagining this separate document?)
You are riight.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-udf-00
I will rename the next one with OpenPGP in the title so the search tools
can find it. The plan is a separate document that essentially only tracks
stuff related to OpenPGP but can be built on by others elsewhere.
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp