I reject S. Moonesamy's proposal, and strongly support Stephen's recommendation.
Sent from my iPad
On May 30, 2014, at 18:42, Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_at_)tolerantnetworks(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 30/05/14 23:22, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Joe,
At 13:42 30-05-2014, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
[Joe] My concern is that there is not enough information in the draft
to know what goes into the hash that is the subject of the code point
assignment. Perhaps it is obvious to someone who implemented the SSH
code that is not documented in this draft, but it is not obvious to me
as a reader of the draft.
That's a fair point. I propose adding the following text in Section 2
as a warning to the reader:
The format of the ED25519 public key with SHA-256 fingerprint is
not documented in an authoritative specification.
Why? Why not just look at the code and write down what that does
in terms of formatting the input.
If >1 implementation interoperates it can't be that hard.
S.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy