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: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB941F5AE for ; Sat, 8 May 2021 02:22:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230257AbhEHCX2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2021 22:23:28 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:52255 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229775AbhEHCX2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2021 22:23:28 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A59D5C00E4 for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 22:22:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 07 May 2021 22:22:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= linuxprogrammer.org; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id :mime-version:content-type; s=fm3; bh=3u0yPobrqXivAMCF56nYc3+QLC xYpmzSh7gFbJ1G+vQ=; b=rFRKIF5hf7ZuNdGrIjKsm6xwykyf5P6ROyNpEAhs8m 4OBv06DEXWEkBr1O+hm1k+n4xF6osDCHJdn1d9D/L+lwN97E+ktarEGx6yKS9mbo v0Bidx0Yv/uCDXqiUhIiIciZoyfRBYsFKVMgyoCdGPKeXF9VEqKYggZI+LOIsk4R /HGb4Rrvdt+MjelK/yG1UnQEjfkLK0pDi0u/uTF4/YIbh1u7IlCB4aBH9sTruMni jE4ysQ8E5KRamiKm7zNrauBn5dUixWQC8FaQdYYCR59jNFJiPEcPvEEyW5omIO7u juaYz34+uH2rkLahGb7LNo12GDjvWS1ZQf9ynA2FxxCw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=3u0yPobrqXivAMCF56nYc3+QLCxYp mzSh7gFbJ1G+vQ=; b=QzdHRF+vSfUZ4zzENtSIkpj3tEhno3FsBxAQAGg6MG4e6 harN2wzWkMoPat1654KtCxfCS09EZhJUwvKDkYc4m5dtrWosPU6CSYBBgEg/EQEG bUsc3EaZGpxTXkvtRemNZ+Dl9a8qj3iCJS/FcxSBcsq3jQFjSnpvv3deyluWnWr/ DBeF3x/lxSfnWm1EhD01iqcCzB5yqgKGnylh2OxGa3A9dHwT5CYFSsL/7adX3urY pHok/k+tHFCfPN3L1jkUPtk7MPbEldJZepexOZYftoNY+SvU94Zx9/O/732yVC5m 01so6GJzwa6z7+BVeOVy16gfTCyiwgH1YSzMDab6g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvdegfedgheekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkgggtuggfsehttdertd dtreejnecuhfhrohhmpegufihhsehlihhnuhigphhrohhgrhgrmhhmvghrrdhorhhgnecu ggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepueffleehfeetieeghfffhfekveekudeggeegffevteduhefgke eikeduhfetudeknecukfhppeeikedrvddvgedrieekrdehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihii vgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepugifhheslhhinhhugihprhhoghhrrg hmmhgvrhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (ip68-224-68-5.lv.lv.cox.net [68.224.68.5]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 22:22:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 19:22:25 -0700 From: dwh@linuxprogrammer.org To: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Preserving the ability to have both SHA1 and SHA256 signatures Message-ID: <20210508022225.GH3986@localhost> Mail-Followup-To: git@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Everybody, I was reading through the Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt doc and realized that the plan is to support allowing BOTH SHA1 and SHA256 signatures to exist in a single object: > Signed Commits > 1. using SHA-1 only, as in existing signed commit objects > 2. using both SHA-1 and SHA-256, by using both gpgsig-sha256 and gpgsig > fields. > 3. using only SHA-256, by only using the gpgsig-sha256 field. > > Signed Tags > 1. using SHA-1 only, as in existing signed tag objects > 2. using both SHA-1 and SHA-256, by using gpgsig-sha256 and an in-body > signature. > 3. using only SHA-256, by only using the gpgsig-sha256 field. The design that I'm working on only supports a single signature that uses a combination of fields: one 'signtype', zero or more 'signoption' and one 'sign' in objects. I am thinking that the best thing to do is replace the gpgsig-sha256 fields in objects and allow old gpgsig (commits) and in-body (tags) signatures to co-exist along side to give the same functionality. That not only paves the way forward but preserves the full backward compatibility that is one of my top requirements. Thoughts? Cheers! Dave