Damian Johnson: >> Isn't using "fingerprint" not a bit misleading since it is not the output of >> a hash function but the ed25519 master public key itself? > > Hi nusenu, that's fair. We've begun to conflate a couple concepts here... > > * Relay operators, controllers, DirPorts, etc all require a canonical > relay identifier. They don't care how it's derived as long as it's > unique to the relay. > > * Relays publish a public ed25519 key. This is an implementation > detail that isn't of interest to the above populations. > > I'd advise against attempting to rename "fingerprint". That hasn't > gone well for hidden services [1]. But with that aside, relay > identifiers and the representation of ed25519 public keys don't > necessarily need to be one and the same.
I'll wait until you (Tor developers) decided on the final naming and format and added a reference https://github.com/nusenu/tor-relay-well-known-uri-spec/commit/949980e72132ba20ca9f687ed8d0e8b43a333834 thanks, nusenu -- 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