On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 5:13 PM nusenu <nusenu-li...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 6:41 PM nusenu <nusenu-li...@riseup.net> 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. > > > >> 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? > > > > I think right now Tor uses unpadded base64 in most internal formats, > > but it doesn't actually use those in the user interface anywhere, so > > we could just use base64urlsafe (per rfc4648 section 5) for the user > > interface. > > > > I would be fine with standardizing that for our API, but I'd want to > > write a proposal for it first. It wouldn't have to be long. We'd > > want to describe other places where we currently use regular base64 > > for 256-bit keys, and say whether we should/shouldn't accept and emit > > url-safe identifiers there instead. > > > > We should specify that there are no spaces, that the padding "=" > > characters are removed, and that even though the format as given can > > handle 43*6==258 bits, the last two bits must be set to 0, since these > > are only 256-bit identifiers. > > > > We should also _probably_ specify some canonical encoding for a pair of > > keys. > > > > I've come to the conclusion that since people are used so much to the fact > that relay ID's (RSA) never were case sensitive, ed25519 should not > be case sensitive either. > > So I'd propose to use base32 without padding. > That would make it 52 chars long. > > 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. yrs, -- Nick _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev