Any opinions?
Hm. Every time we've displayed Ed25519 fingerprints so far, we've
used base64. I'm not sure that changing it will actually save more
confusion than it causes.
thanks for the prompt reply.
Hm, ok I guess then we have already reached the point of no return
where it is too late
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 5:13 PM nusenu wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 6:41 PM nusenu wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 6:41 PM nusenu wrote:
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)
I don't think that'd be too hard.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 6:41 PM nusenu wrote:
>
> 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)
I don't think that'd be too
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
>
> 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
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
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
> 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
> First, I'd advise that we call these 'v2 fingerprints' so it's clear
> that we intend to substitute these anywhere traditional fingerprints
> are used.
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?
>
> The way I understand it is this: Relay fingerprints are based on the
> RSA key, which will go away eventually. The canonical identifier will
> be the identity. We should start that transition
Thanks Sebastian. In that case we should put more thought into this
because fingerprints are
Hi Damian,
> On 2. Aug 2020, at 00:04, Damian Johnson wrote:
>
>> I'd like to use "ed25519 identity" or even just "identity" here going
>> forward.
>
> Gotcha. The name of 'identity' makes me wonder how this relates to
> relay fingerprints, which are the canonical identifier we use.
>
>
> I was wondering why the base64 string is 43 characters long for a 32byte
> Ed25519 key.
> 32*8/6=42
That is because tor drops trailing '=' from base64 encoded values
within descriptors. Some fields indicate this within the spec, others
don't.
>> base64 encoding (parts of) the ed25519_master_id_public_key
>> file, provides the same output as in master-key-ed25519 descriptor lines
>> but I didn't find a spec for that key file to confirm the try and error
>> approach
>> or a tor command to simply output the ed25519_master_key public key
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:10 AM nusenu wrote:
>
> nusenu:
> >> The only question that came up was: Will there be two types of relay
> >> fingerprints
> >> in the future (Ed25519)?
> >
> > I assume the correct proposal for the Ed25519 keys is this:
> >
nusenu:
>> The only question that came up was: Will there be two types of relay
>> fingerprints
>> in the future (Ed25519)?
>
> I assume the correct proposal for the Ed25519 keys is this:
> https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/220-ecc-id-keys.txt
>
> I'm wondering what kind
> The only question that came up was: Will there be two types of relay
> fingerprints
> in the future (Ed25519)?
I assume the correct proposal for the Ed25519 keys is this:
https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/220-ecc-id-keys.txt
I'm wondering what kind of format is used for
17 matches
Mail list logo
