Re: [tor-dev] How do Ed25519 relay IDs look like?
Damian Johnson: >> I hope we can agree to use the same format in all places. > > Thanks nusenu, that's a great summary. Honestly I doubt that > deprecating RSA keys is on anyone's visible horizon, and by extension > RSA-based fingerprints will remain our canonical identifiers for the > foreseeable future. That is fine. To clarify: I'm _not_ aiming to speed the transition to a RSA1024 free tor world up (that is not my goal here). I'd just like to see a decision on the naming and format that will be used from the point the decision has been made - so I can point to it and use it in the well-known URI submission. If it is clear to you that we will not see a decision on the naming and format in Aug 2020. That is also valuable information for me. -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
Re: [tor-dev] How do Ed25519 relay IDs look like?
> I hope we can agree to use the same format in all places. Thanks nusenu, that's a great summary. Honestly I doubt that deprecating RSA keys is on anyone's visible horizon, and by extension RSA-based fingerprints will remain our canonical identifiers for the foreseeable future. That leaves our present default position as "ed25519 public identity keys are a base64 encoded descriptor field that has no relationship to fingerprints, but might become the basis for them in the future". That said, I'm happy to discuss this topic further if Nick or the Network team would like to do so. ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
Re: [tor-dev] How do Ed25519 relay IDs look like?
nusenu: > I'll wait until you (Tor developers) decided on the final naming and format Is there any interest to move this topic forward to come to some decision in the near future? (before the end of the month) Here is a short summary of what opinions I observed for this topic (naming and format for Ed25519 identities) so far: Naming proposals for relay Ed25519 identities: 'v2 fingerprints' (Damian) "ed25519 identity" or even just "identity" (nickm) Output format the Ed25519 relay IDs: base64 - 43 characters long (nickm) this is problematic due to the "/" sign (Damian) hex - 64 characters long (Damian) "/" is problematic for DirPort urls, GETINFO commands, etc (Damian) isn't there urlencoding for URLs? (nusenu) base64urlsafe - 43 characters long (nusenu) I hope we can agree to use the same format in all places. How does the decision process looks like in general in the Tor Project? -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
