On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:03:43PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:54:09AM -0400, Santiago Torres Arias wrote: > > > Seeing how large this signature is, I have to admit that I am partial to > > > Konstantin's suggestion of using minisign. This seems like something > > > that could be added to git as an alternative to gpg without too much > > > trouble, I think. > > > > I wonder how big the pgp payload would be with ed25519 as the underlying > > algorithm. AFAICT, the payload of a minisign signature vs a signature > > packet have almost the same fields... > > It's smaller, but it's not a one-liner. Here's a comparison using ED25519 > keys of the same length: > > minisign: > > RWQ4kF9UdFgeSt3LqnS3WnrLlx2EnuIFW7euw5JnLUHY/79ipftmj7A2ug7FiR2WmnFNoSacWr7llBuyInVmRL/VRovj1LFtvA0= > > pgp: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iHUEARYIAB0WIQR2vl2yUnHhSB5njDW2xBzjVmSZbAUCXaniFAAKCRC2xBzjVmSZ > bHA5AP46sSPFJfL2tbXwswvj0v2DjLAQ9doxl9bfj9iPZu+3qwEAw5qAMbjw9teL > L7+NbJ0WVniDWTgt+5ruQ2V9vyfYxAc= > =B/St Yeah, the discrepancy mostly comes from pgp embedding a timestamp and a longer keyid (+a full keyid fingerprint in pgp 2.1+). Minisign keyids are 8 random bytes, apparently. It doesn't seem like an amazing win in terms of succintness, imvho... Cheers! -Santiago.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
