Re: [openpgp] Version 5 key and fingerprint proposal

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 04:03:51PM +0100, Thijs van Dijk wrote:
> On 16 March 2017 at 15:03, Peter Todd <pete(_at_)petertodd(_dot_)org> wrote:
>
> > Well, if that's the case, there's no reason to use less than a full 256
> > bits,
> > either SHA256 directly, or SHA512 truncated in the standard way.
>
> Sure there is. From earlier in this thread:
>
> On 8 March 2017 at 08:02, Werner Koch <wk(_at_)gnupg(_dot_)org> wrote:
>
> > Due to the use of the 'Issuer Fingerpint' the signatures grow in size by
> > 22 octets which is substantal for ECC signatures.  With the full V5
> > fingerprint this would increase to 25 octets (34 - 9 from the not used
> > 'Issuer' subpacket).  By truncating the fingerprint we will only use 18
> > octets which is even a saving compared to V4 keys.
Yes, I missed that message, sorry.

That said, I certainly don't find such small savings a good reason to use
"non-standard" crypto - in the grand scheme of things even on small devices
that's meaningless.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp