Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:11:22 -0400
From:   Santiago Torres Arias <santiago@nyu.edu>
To:     Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
        workflows@vger.kernel.org, Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
Subject: Re: email as a bona fide git transport
Message-ID: <20191018161121.6qe5kkweh4u77gvn@LykOS.localdomain>
References: <b9fb52b8-8168-6bf0-9a72-1e6c44a281a5@oracle.com>
 <20191016111009.GE13154@1wt.eu>
 <20191016144517.giwip4yuaxtcd64g@LykOS.localdomain>
 <56664222-6c29-09dc-ef78-7b380b113c4a@oracle.com>
 <20191018155408.dk4tsjrne42ufpvv@LykOS.localdomain>
 <20191018160343.GB25456@chatter.i7.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5dbczkamho4hvge3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191018160343.GB25456@chatter.i7.local>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--5dbczkamho4hvge3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.
> >=20
> > 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...
>=20
> It's smaller, but it's not a one-liner. Here's a comparison using ED25519
> keys of the same length:
>=20
> minisign:
>=20
> RWQ4kF9UdFgeSt3LqnS3WnrLlx2EnuIFW7euw5JnLUHY/79ipftmj7A2ug7FiR2WmnFNoSacW=
r7llBuyInVmRL/VRovj1LFtvA0=3D
>=20
> pgp:
>=20
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>=20
> iHUEARYIAB0WIQR2vl2yUnHhSB5njDW2xBzjVmSZbAUCXaniFAAKCRC2xBzjVmSZ
> bHA5AP46sSPFJfL2tbXwswvj0v2DjLAQ9doxl9bfj9iPZu+3qwEAw5qAMbjw9teL
> L7+NbJ0WVniDWTgt+5ruQ2V9vyfYxAc=3D
> =3DB/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.

--5dbczkamho4hvge3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=MEhz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5dbczkamho4hvge3--