> di:sha-128:B_K97zTtFuOhug27fke4_Q?enc=aes-cbc:Fw3x20nEKfq6FDGzq7ttIQ Instead if defining new names for truncated digests, why not simply include a truncated digest with the existing algorithm name? You can determine the truncation (in bytes) from the length of the base64url-encoding so there is no ambiguity.
di:sha-256:B_K97zTtFuOhug27fke4_Q The only downside I see is the risk of bad implementations accepting a digest truncated to, say, 1 byte (eg di:sha-256:Bw) instead of enforcing a minimum security level. -- James Manger _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
