On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:50:18PM +0000, solderpunk wrote: > Ah, right, if everybody is already using SHA256 then, yes, we can stick > to that and the different serialisations are convertible. And I don't > see any reason not too. From what I can tell there (somewhat > surprisingly) really isn't a standard notion of certificate > fingerprinting, but SHA1 and SHA256 seem to be the most commonly used by > web browsers. At the risk of overthinking things, I was reading RFC6709 "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions" for non-Gemini reasons recently and this section seems relevant: "4.5. Cryptographic Agility ... The ability to negotiate the use of a particular cryptographic algorithm provides resilience against compromise of a particular cryptographic algorithm.... This is usually accomplished by including an algorithm identifier and parameters in the protocol, and by specifying the algorithm requirements in the protocol specification." i.e. Instead of storing opaque bytes, also mention that it's SHA256 A stand-alone implementation of this concept: https://multiformats.io/multihash/ Cheers, Tom
---
Previous in thread (40 of 52): 🗣️ Sean Conner (sean (a) conman.org)
Next in thread (42 of 52): 🗣️ Martin Keegan (martin (a) no.ucant.org)