I reject S. Moonesamy's proposal, and strongly support Stephen's recommendation. Sent from my iPad > On May 30, 2014, at 18:42, Stephen Farrell <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 30/05/14 23:22, S Moonesamy wrote: >> Hi Joe, >> At 13:42 30-05-2014, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote: >>> [Joe] My concern is that there is not enough information in the draft >>> to know what goes into the hash that is the subject of the code point >>> assignment. Perhaps it is obvious to someone who implemented the SSH >>> code that is not documented in this draft, but it is not obvious to me >>> as a reader of the draft. >> >> That's a fair point. I propose adding the following text in Section 2 >> as a warning to the reader: >> >> The format of the ED25519 public key with SHA-256 fingerprint is >> not documented in an authoritative specification. > > Why? Why not just look at the code and write down what that does > in terms of formatting the input. > > If >1 implementation interoperates it can't be that hard. > > S. > >> >> Regards, >> S. Moonesamy