Kathleen Moriarty schrieb am 14.05.2015 um 15:58: > > I agree with Stephen. My yes was because more secure options are defined, > but less would be good.
There was some discussion on this (admittedly by quite few participants) and my summary was as follows > Question 3: Which (sub)set of protocols (hash function, MAC length) should be > selected? > - Johannes: SHA-256-192 as MUST, SHA-512-256 as SHOULD, all other can be MAY > or omitted. > - Uri: SHA-256-192 and SHA-384-320 as MUST, SHA-512-256 as SHOULD, and > SHA-224-??? as MAY > - Tom: AFAIU, he agrees with the preferences expressed by David, Johannes and > Uri. > - David: SHA-256-192 and SHA-512-384. > (In all the above cases, the preferences were not that strong, there was > mainly the wish to reduce the number of > protocols in the current draft.) Then I suggested the subset as it is currently defined and everyone agreed. It was a compromise. But considering the individual opinions, It would be safe to delete the SHA-224 option. -- Johannes _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
