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.
> > 
> > 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

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.