Eric, Thanks for your post. I meant to ask you this question specifically, earlier today, and then got distracted.
Spencer > At Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:34:24 -0800, > Michael Chen wrote: >> >> Cullen, >> >> Having the same NodeId size on the wire as in computing memory makes >> programming much easier. > > Without addressing the generic question of whether NodeIds should be > variable length, I don't really think the appropriate size of NodeId > is that related to the size of the hash function you happen to be > using to convert Resource names to Resource-Ids. Obviously, the size > of the hash function ought to be large enough to fill the entire > Resource/Node-Id space, but, the converse is not true. Moreover, the > cryptographic security requirements that dictate the current set of > hash function sizes aren't really the same as what we need here. If > you're using, say, SHA-256, it's trivial to have it emit a 128-bit > value simply by truncating. If you like, you can think of this as a > new hash function called "SHA-256-truncated-to-128". > > -Ekr > > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
