On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Stradling <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Adam. I agree that having more options just for the sake of having > more options isn't actually helpful. Enough options to achieve sufficient > diversity is enough. > > How much do we care about NIST's blessing these days? > (Much, much less than a decade ago?) > EdDSA/Curve25519/etc isn't a NIST product. > True. Is there a case for using BLAKE2 for certificate signatures _instead_ of > using SHA-3? > Performance does matter for other uses of hash algorithms, so why not > settle on using BLAKE2 for everything (and not implement SHA-3 at all)? Frankly, I'm up for it :) But the bulk of this work isn't getting browsers to support something, it's getting the long-tail of devices to support something and the pressure that we'll have to exert to make it happen. They might get more upset at BLAKE2 than something with a NIST stamp on it. (Although, I was just about to note that they often use OpenSSL and OpenSSL surely will support SHA-3 before BLAKE2. But it appears I'm wrong and OpenSSL has had BLAKE2 for nine months and still lacks SHA-3?) Cheers AGL
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
