On Dec 12, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Marsh Ray wrote: > On 12/12/2011 09:06 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> >> On Dec 12, 2011, at 6:57 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: >>> A year from now, "sha-256" is going to be ambiguous. Better to say >>> "sha2-256". >> >> Good point, and one that might be made on the SAAG list as well. > > It's already somewhat ambiguous now that NIST has > defined SHA[-2]-512/256. > > http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsDrafts.html#fips-180-4
Then that is what it must be called: "sha2-512/256". I think that's a legal string in HTTP headers. Supposedly this is faster on 64-bit applications. I wonder if that is true in practice. So far, I have seen no implementations of this hash function. _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
