Fair enough, I guess. But all of these libraries already have algorithm IDs for SHA256/SHA512, so some new convention is going to have to come for SHA3/512.
I can just see the administrators saying "Damn, I forgot the '2' again!" On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > (Sorry if this has already been raised, but…) > > > > The digest identifiers in draft-ietf-dane-registry-acronyms-02 seem a > little silly, in that nobody else in the world really seems to care that > these are variants of SHA2. The standard practice across many libraries is > to just use some variant of "SHA-XXX", where XXX=256,384,512. > > > > Richard, > > First version had this but an comment was made that we could have both > SHA2 and SHA3 in 512 bit variant thus the recommendation > was to future proof us. > > > OpenSSL: shaXXX > > WebCrypto: SHA-XXX > > BouncyCastle: SHAXXXDigest > > CNG: BCRYPT_SHAXXX_ALGORITHM > > PKCS#11: CKM_SHAXXX > > > > So I would suggest we just change these to "SHA-256" and "SHA-512". > > Unless the chair's tell me to make the change it will not be made, > feel free to bring this up in the IETF LC if you think this is important. > > Olafur > > > > > --Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dane mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane > >
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
