On 6/15/11 1:35 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Wed Jun 1 23:55:47 2011, Waqas Hussain wrote: >> But if we go with tags, do we even need to specify that? We can always >> add tags later in new namespaces, even defined in new XEPs, e.g. >> <hash xmlns="new sha1 xmlns">...<hash> >> or >> <sha1 xmlns="new XEP-0096 namespace, or even the existing namespace, >> since the updated protocol is fully backwards compatible">...</sha1> > > I dislike this, because it's harder for an app to say "Hey, this app > sent me a hash function I don't understand", which can be interesting > (perhaps not in FT, but in other cases). > > Also, it requires more work than a textual name, since we have those > defined and maintained for us at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-names > > So therefore I'd like to suggest we consider an element: <hash > xmlns='urn:xmpp:crypto:hash' function='sha-1' format='64|hex'>...</hash> > > I appreciate this isn't as exciting and shiny as a new namespace and > element name for every hash, but in effect, this has already defined 8 > hash functions, so we can move on and concern ourselves only with which > one we want to recommend for now.
How is support for each function discovered? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
