Werner Koch: > That is actually on purpose. Both are based on the same curve and it > seems easier to just call it Curve25519 than to explain why we use a > different variant for signing. After all Curve25519 is a well known > term. Sounds almost reasonable. But why then GnuPG shows Ed25519 keys as eg. 'ed25519/52275F7A'? When someone trying to generate 'Curve25519-signing key' they'll get ed25519 key. "Maybe I've done something wrong? I should regenerate my signature key...". In my opinion it's a little bit confusing. The fact that both Ed25519 and Curve25519 are based on the same curve one can easily note from '25519' in their names. Actually Ed25519 is a birational equivalent to Curve25519; it's not a Curve25519. So I think that GnuPG should use exact naming for what it uses.
-- Ivan Markin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
