On 1 June 2017 at 09:55, Remko Tronçon <[email protected]> wrote: > Just on this (because it might be relevant later): I think you're making > fingerprint changes > sound worse than they are. The only thing that gets lost is people who > authenticated > fingerprints out-of-band, but haven't yet confirmed this in their client and > then upgrade. > This could be as easy as a warning before upgrading "Do you have any > fingerprints that you > still haven't validated in the app". Even Signal (who seem very focused on > UX) changed their > fingerprints at some point AFAIK.
Just to clarify this in my own mind, you're saying that the fingerprints (a method for one-time validation of a key) might change, but the keys themselves need not, so previous validations made using a deprecated fingerprint format would remain in effect? Someone (I can't recall who) made the point that fingerprints might have been placed in print, for example business cards etc, so I assume that fingerprint compatibility is at least a nice-to-have, though I suspect such cases are going to be very rare. So: Encryption Interop: Don't care (negotiable at runtime) Key Compatibility: Forward - old keys should work with the new protocol. Key Fingerprint Compatibility: Nice to have (but will only affect/benefit small minority). Is that a fair summary? Dave. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
