From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B768C1F4C1 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:03:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2502341AbfJRQDr (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:03:47 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f178.google.com ([209.85.222.178]:43838 "EHLO mail-qk1-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390108AbfJRQDr (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:03:47 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f178.google.com with SMTP id a194so1671292qkg.10 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:03:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zLp1+uce/82spUwz58lSU9bq+f/LyVwG+zR5ofSPevQ=; b=MT7j6VuXBKW/1H3pnSmpNBezwuw1A1g0KfcJDbq4dCocf/Cyf8WYpn4uYIeG7sWAil o3jHr3UpG1mEBwip0Ums+C4OSVhlsJHzMgsy2tVFXN949jG7td009fg0pZi19Jl30Lac +PtPwdfcXsLohUSjTqcbAezqomPiE3Wjf8AL4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=zLp1+uce/82spUwz58lSU9bq+f/LyVwG+zR5ofSPevQ=; b=NlU3ltZwtR5p78PZkFH0cItKRZdWVQh8vy/lJAFFwVUyohy+8PRuaTyGAOlzit+v7C Oh3SeyK+hjoffuyj5tdFGWsnw18f3iZIf3PsG9Ucrf1g3cS1Py2+pJg4sKmfzUEJKa8w 2yzO7QxTbTnkX/Vfpqj2H2kUkw/vLspmgiRupxhwbxOgyhrm0xuRFykFblbUJ1TRlLdp 9LGd8SNfbn1HIvrH4xD5RlQYMgRLQkuxJjsCY+vmKK8XJyACWILgGcmZP0I7HlldgKT+ HNKMUbafvTHlOYFOrJSEOyuscBwlhFTQpn03nhWDg1U5MekI4aCknboyCoGWjMglk0Fl Z+Jg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW9o4Uy8HEDRgAqqoT+whSo3eGPt0eFhhxbutm53EYtdDSdPZRP EUI0unFJI4YXZO9Qv+iA30d1cA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxaSFFnCUWDXGSs/4g30alrIcbHoxKHK9VsIwer424Fky63UM5YEWt1Eu3QeIBy1+SXbU8W8w== X-Received: by 2002:a37:a8d3:: with SMTP id r202mr8948996qke.405.1571414626275; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chatter.i7.local (192-0-228-88.cpe.teksavvy.com. [192.0.228.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g33sm2747388qtd.12.2019.10.18.09.03.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:03:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 12:03:43 -0400 From: Konstantin Ryabitsev To: Santiago Torres Arias Cc: Vegard Nossum , Willy Tarreau , workflows@vger.kernel.org, Git Mailing List , LKML , Eric Wong Subject: Re: email as a bona fide git transport Message-ID: <20191018160343.GB25456@chatter.i7.local> Mail-Followup-To: Santiago Torres Arias , Vegard Nossum , Willy Tarreau , workflows@vger.kernel.org, Git Mailing List , LKML , Eric Wong References: <20191016111009.GE13154@1wt.eu> <20191016144517.giwip4yuaxtcd64g@LykOS.localdomain> <56664222-6c29-09dc-ef78-7b380b113c4a@oracle.com> <20191018155408.dk4tsjrne42ufpvv@LykOS.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191018155408.dk4tsjrne42ufpvv@LykOS.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org 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 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -K