[Cryptography] Is there any advantage to canonical fingerprints.

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema at huitema.net>
wrote:

> On 10/2/2017 11:05 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> So I was working on my UDF fingerprint scheme. Using base32 to encode a
> fingerprint and adding an 8 byte version prefix means that a fingerprint
> with a 117 bit work factor looks like this:
>
> MDDK7-N6A72-7AJZN-OSTRX-XKS72
>
> Its not bad but how about we ease up on the work factor. The absolute
> minimum I would want to have is 92 bits.
>
> Now suppose that the first 25 bits of the fingerprint are zeros. The 92
> bit fingerprint that would look like this:
>
> MAAAA-AB3VV-FOFE2-CLRWJ
>
> Now looks like this:
>
> MF3VV-FOFE2-CLRWJ
>
>
> Both the idea and the implementation are very close to the "call signs"
> system that I worked on with Kim Cameron and Josh Benaloh. Too bad that we
> failed to publish an academic paper, and that the best description is in
> the patent -- https://www.google.com.au/patents/US7929689.
>

​Ah now I remember why I didn't do it this way.​ We talked about it, i
looked at the patent and thought, nope not doing that, then seem to have
re-invented it when I came to implement. Ooops!

​However!
9 Jun 2015 FP Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee
Effective date: 20150419​
​
​Tada!!

So looks like you have won yourself a citation in my draft :)​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20171002/6f97ebe9/attachment.html>