I feel strongly against making anything but SHA-256 mandatory to implement. It will delay publication and not improve the interoperability story. That said, I agree that the Blake2 family is a good fit here so it would be nice to have bird and babeld support them - but they do not need to be in the spec.
David On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:59 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: > "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email protected]> writes: > > > FYI. IETF policies re "downrefs" in standards track RFCs is described in > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3967 (and updated by > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8067). > > In short, it's not prohibited, but careful review is required. > > Note RFC3967 Section 2 first bullet > > > > There are a number of circumstances in which an IETF document may > > need to make a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity > > level, but such a reference conflicts with Section 4.2.4 of > > [RFC2026]. For example: > > > > o A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or > > algorithm developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or > > profiled by an IETF informational RFC, for example, MD5 [RFC1321] > > and HMAC [RFC2104]. Note that this does not override the IETF's > > duty to see that the specification is indeed sufficiently clear to > > enable creation of interoperable implementations. > > Ah, so HMAC itself is already an informational RFC? Great, let's do > blake2, then! :D > > -Toke > > _______________________________________________ > Babel-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
_______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
