> Would a path forward be to do this?: > > 1) Change the algorithm in Section 2 to use HMAC.
My objection to that path forward is that there's NO interoperability benefit given by prescribing any hash function. What this document does for interoperability is define a mechanism that, if used consistently, will provide the interop we want/need. It only matters that the redactor consistently use the same hashing. It doesn't matter AT ALL *what* that hashing is. I think it's not a good idea to over-specify. I think the way forward is to explain why we don't need cryptographic security here, and why the specific hash function chosen doesn't matter, as long as the redacted value stays the same for the same unredacted input. And that's all. Barry _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
