On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:23 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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).
2 is fine. Would still prefer MUST. Would also like an arm32 + neon blake benchmark. > > > 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 -- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740 _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
