Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18FBB409 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:42:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (mail-ie0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9202DEE for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:42:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iecri3 with SMTP id ri3so23971378iec.2 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:42:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vinumeris.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jfYBk03kaEmti/9U9WLpT4EtB1iuKbGa2wiEt0MwF38=; b=DsoYzk/8sTHGVpQy4wo2ktLkicc0gAjC4OHYDqMyXDbYRzH5WkLvaQ+lrydmOVxRcg d+1EHSgrgukeyJzgxHaqBX2mxbFm/bf8OQNXiu5tdzVpZaa8OWFXTpnBwSj3QS82wltZ xubbiXtWoyTs12Wlem6+OUjROruo5rMevT5ng= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=jfYBk03kaEmti/9U9WLpT4EtB1iuKbGa2wiEt0MwF38=; b=YwtMXHUAhklSplHlV8QNKWVwPn+jxS2DUoRWLBRDdtOdgU5i9RmQplDKhG13a8GbOi M4aw7+uZgeWGyn4F24X8L97kktzhrjLy00uoiI+QZJHH6OEdvb9GU6vYQCIqr+V4m9Le gjez8eWSaibScpXg13zjV2yvZAbMqT8OTYZ6Hh54IysakrmYCcBt/HOGTvodneMpjdZk jDI5S8YqA0SsocQ0XaoN8LA9dWVVrcxSEXOG7hfe3rzOw+SjlammkfLyWMzZG6oKjJyL VNuyl9SjPIC3Wyo5l2ZTLB4/jE3B2ZQzBSHbmY+X6+ds3wA9ufmDBnVvWYreQIw/J/3H IGWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlIJ4upPwxQfeuzW49mR0NJNgJSl+ok72RiThT3hkNx7cu+Bsx875oKch4Y6zZCiDBETGAT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.40.147 with SMTP id o141mr36941976ioo.83.1437403326124; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.108.111 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:42:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55AD0669.4040002@electrum.org> References: <55A4AF62.4090607@electrum.org> <55AB8785.4080201@electrum.org> <55AD0669.4040002@electrum.org> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:42:05 +0200 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Thomas Voegtlin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141d818a73009051b4f8a10 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: extend bip70 with OpenAlias X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:42:07 -0000 --001a1141d818a73009051b4f8a10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > In my previous post, I was suggesting to *not* include the proof in the > request, because the payer can download it independently. Only the final > signature is needed. What makes DNSSEC interesting is not the size of > the proof, but rather the fact that you can request it easily, and in a > canonical way. > Yes, but you still need the final signature. Is it possible to use an EC signature with DNSSEC? I thought it was an all-RSA system. If I'm wrong about that, and all you need is 32 bytes, then my argument does not hold. --001a1141d818a73009051b4f8a10 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In my previous post, I was suggesting to *not* i= nclude the proof in the
request, because the payer can download it independently. Only the final signature is needed. What makes DNSSEC interesting is not the size of
the proof, but rather the fact that you can request it easily, and in a
canonical way.

Yes, but you still need = the final signature. Is it possible to use an EC signature with DNSSEC? I t= hought it was an all-RSA system. If I'm wrong about that, and all you n= eed is 32 bytes, then my argument does not hold.
--001a1141d818a73009051b4f8a10--