Richard Barnes wrote:
> 
> The digest identifiers in draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-02 seem a
> little silly, in that nobody else in the world really seems to care that
> these are variants of SHA2.  The standard practice across many libraries is
> to just use some variant of "SHA-XXX", where XXX=256,384,512.

while sha224, sha256, sha384 and sha512 are members of the SHA2-Family,
they're not all the same algorithm, they use two seperate algorithms.

sha256 + sha224  use the same 32-bit algorithm
(different internal start value, output truncation for sha224)

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6234#section-5.1


sha512 + sha384  use the same 64-bit algorithm
(different internal start value, output truncation for sha384)

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6234#section-5.2


> 
> So I would suggest we just change these to "SHA-256" and "SHA-512".

In theory, reusing (or copying) an existing IANA registry would
be preferable to inventing yet another different variant.

Unfortunately, it seems that all variants already exist...

  TLS:      
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-18

    0   none    Y       [RFC5246]
    1   md5     Y       [RFC5246]
    2   sha1    Y       [RFC5246]
    3   sha224  Y       [RFC5246]
    4   sha256  Y       [RFC5246]
    5   sha384  Y       [RFC5246]
    6   sha512  Y       [RFC5246]

  PKIX/CMS: 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-names/hash-function-text-names.xhtml

    "md2"       1.2.840.113549.2.2      [RFC3279]
    "md5"       1.2.840.113549.2.5      [RFC3279]
    "sha-1"     1.3.14.3.2.26   [RFC3279]
    "sha-224"   2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.4  [RFC4055]
    "sha-256"   2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.1  [RFC4055]
    "sha-384"   2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.2  [RFC4055]
    "sha-512"   2.16.840.1.101.3.4.2.3  [RFC4055]

  IPSEC:    
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipsec-registry/ipsec-registry.xhtml#ipsec-registry-6

    1   MD5     [RFC1321]
    2   SHA     [NIST, FIPS PUB 180-1: Secure Hash Standard, April 1995.]
    3   Tiger   [Anderson, R., and Biham, E., "Fast Software Encryption", 
Springer LNCS v. 1039, 1996.]
    4   SHA2-256        [Marcus_Leech][RFC4868]
    5   SHA2-384        [Marcus_Leech][RFC4868]
    6   SHA2-512        [Marcus_Leech][RFC4868]

  DKIM:     
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dkim-parameters/dkim-parameters.xhtml#dkim-parameters-7

    sha1        [FIPS-180-3-2008]       active
    sha256      [FIPS-180-3-2008]       active

  DNSSEC/NSEC3:  
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dnssec-nsec3-parameters/dnssec-nsec3-parameters.xhtml#dnssec-nsec3-parameters-3

    0   Reserved        [RFC5155]
    1   SHA-1           [RFC5155]

  DNSSEC:    
http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-sec-alg-numbers/dns-sec-alg-numbers.xhtml#dns-sec-alg-numbers-1

  Number  Description    Mnemonic
    5   RSA/SHA-1       RSASHA1         Y  Y    [RFC3110][RFC4034]
    6   DSA-NSEC3-SHA1  DSA-NSEC3-SHA1  Y  Y    [RFC5155][proposed standard]
    8   RSA/SHA-256     RSASHA256       Y  *    [RFC5702][proposed standard]
    9   Reserved                                [RFC6725]
    10  RSA/SHA-512     RSASHA512       Y  *    [RFC5702][proposed standard]



RFC 4634 / 6234  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6234#page-3

    4.1. SHA-224 and SHA-256
    4.2. SHA-384 and SHA-512


-Martin
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

Reply via email to