At Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:20:21 +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > >> Why is sha-256 hardcoded? > > > > Real answer: because it's hard-coded in RFC 6486 and we were trying to > > use the same hashing algorithm for manifests, this, and RRDP > > (draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol). > > Hmm. I don't see sha-256 mentioned in 6486 never mind > hardcoded. Is there some indirection I'm missing? (But this > may be moot, see below.)
OK, strictly speaking it's not hard coded in 6486, it's a reference to 6485. Works out to the same thing for practical purposes: sha-256 now, upgrade theoretically possible but likely to be somewhat painful. > > I had been assuming that an algorithm change would be a protocol > > version bump. Given that the server is probably storing these hashes > > in a database, changing the algorithm is probably a bit more involved > > than just changing the bits on the wire. > > WRT clearing the discuss, if the draft said that then I'd > be happy to clear. (Meaning that I don't care how the spec > achieves alg. agility so long as it does somehow.) Will do, thanks. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
