Fix #449 (ECDSA forcing DER/ASN.1)

[karel-m]

Fix ECDSA forcing DER.

TODO:

• update doc
• add a test case with eth27 signature format
• refactor ecc_recover_key()

This fixes #449

[sjaeckel]

LGTM

[sjaeckel]

so we wait now until the two missing points are done?

[karel-m]

If you agree with the proposed split, which I assume you do, I (or any other volunteer) have to update doc and tests.

[sjaeckel]

👍

[levitte]

This looks good so far. Do you need help with the last bits (docs / test)?

[sjaeckel]

Do you need help with the last bits (docs / test)?

Sure! Thanks :)

[levitte]

Do you need help with the last bits (docs / test)?

Sure! Thanks :)

Sorry that I never came back on this... [sigh] ambition doesn't always align with time

[sjaeckel]

Thanks for the review!

I actually found the column of parameters easier to read

Yeah, I was lazy and c&p'ed from the sources, so it's the same style.

I'll have another look.

the italics style was meant to align with man-pages(7)

Aahh alright, that makes sense.

I believe that monospace is better suited for that purpose to highlight code/variable names (and that's also what is used in most modern formatting styles). Additionally this allows to use italics to reference to proper nouns/standards/etc.

should there be a future PR with s/textit/texttt/ applied

Absolutely - for all "code-related" terms.

[levitte]

So, just for kicks, I tried a change from \textit to \texttt, and well, I dunno... typographically, it's a question what's more distinct in a text flow. Compare these two images:

Monotone:

---

Italics:

[sjaeckel]

I liked the idea, but I found it hard to decide on two completely different parts of the text, so I took the same text and applied the two different styles.

Monospace vs. Italics vs. Monospace-Italics

... and I agree that the text flow is different in the monospace version. It somehow feels kind of "better readable" with italics, but don't ask me why, I have the impression the meaning is clearer in the monospace version.

[Edit] and Monospace-Italics kind of combines both. It's a bit strange at first but it's very well readable and stands out from the regular text.

What should we do? 🤷

I'm slightly strongly leaning towards monospace monospace-italics ...

[Edit 2] FTR: I created the third with the following addition on the top

diff --git a/doc/crypt.tex b/doc/crypt.tex
index 81995116..4b4274c8 100644
--- a/doc/crypt.tex
+++ b/doc/crypt.tex
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
 \documentclass[synpaper]{book}
+\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
 \usepackage{geometry}
@@ -46,2 +47,3 @@
 \definecolor{DGray}{gray}{0.5}
+\newcommand{\code}[1]{\texttt{\textit{#1}}}
 \newcommand{\emailaddr}[1]{\mbox{$<${#1}$>$}}

The first change I'd keep for sure, since otherwise one cant copy&paste from the PDF.

The second change declares the \code{} macro to format as monospace-italics.

[levitte]

I think we can agree on monospace-italics.

The \code{} macro should be added either way, so whatever we end up choosing (or changing again in the future, 'cause one never knows), it makes for consistency, makes life easier, so just add it 😉

[levitte]

Did a visual check, looks great :-)