Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> writes: >>> With these numbers, I withdraw my support of including anything else >>> than SHA256 as MTI. I think specifying Blake2B or 2S as well makes >>> sense (mostly for crypto robustness reasons for having alternative >>> that is specified) but making it MAY-SHOULD seems sensible to me. > >> I can probably live with that :) > > Excellent, it looks like we're converging. Thanks to both of you for the > informative and kind discussion. > > At this stage, I see four possibilities: > > (1) leave the document as it is; > (2) add a mention that implementation of Blake2S is RECOMMENDED (SHOULD); > (3) add a mention that implementation of Blake2B is RECOMMENDED; > (4) add a mention that implementation of both 2B and 2S is RECOMMENDED. > > I am in favour of (1), since I am convinced that SHA256 is fast enough for > all reasonable devices. (2) makes sense to me, and I won't oppose it. > I'll need some convincing in order to do (3) or (4), since Blake2B does > not appear bring any significant speed advantage over SHA256.
I'm in favour of (2). > In either case, I'm planning to implement SHA256, Blake2B and Blake2S in > the reference implementation. Cool. I'll do the same in Bird, then :) -Toke _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
