Re: [babel] HMAC and MTI [was: rather than ripemd160...]

Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi> Mon, 26 November 2018 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fingon@kapsi.fi>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26FF12D4ED for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:53:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kapsi.fi
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H-qvruHiy44K for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:53:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.kapsi.fi (mail.kapsi.fi [IPv6:2001:67c:1be8::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B00C126BED for <babel@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 05:53:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kapsi.fi; s=20161220; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=dC/rsQ/voQMnDM1l1IYGPGvDXfm1YjfI2oVAMDernPo=; b=R4yTGFxstcwxWqfkQ03z8ihFjw Y76skkYdwZK19nnZeotroH9ynXI95SUmNg5+i4MoNTwkTOXTYTfMAr98ooufaIfgmanmrr/+KoD9x K6Dr+5FFBw+eqnGupjJt+9S1T9UVNMWCubNUjI/5JwRxSwVeDzoKxR+MK4xc44c1q7UXZvukE+ySB mNyshS0VUyOF3E8vQ9mtBhvPx/rKJunXxMN95MCSGGAoFIydhiFhSZ66s2C+oeVsAXsRXG9uqlnhb /f8011R3kh5fnshRnnsbmP4DpjrP4eQ88Wx/8rt12kZKXFUSimk8lwUoHsrYTWmxlRHMDhDbtzzAH KINUgzIA==;
Received: from [194.100.69.221] (helo=yuri.home) by mail.kapsi.fi with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>) id 1gRHKQ-00057i-JV; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:53:34 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.1 \(3445.101.1\))
From: Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <87a7lwossu.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:53:34 +0200
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>, babel-users <babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <48CB71FB-9F90-45E8-9AD2-43AA257234C1@iki.fi>
References: <CAA93jw5fHRm21yEJsabiiOF1ZP7Zh3M_gEgRo0imBOpRGhf0qA@mail.gmail.com> <87in0koun6.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87in0kx98o.fsf@toke.dk> <87a7lwossu.wl-jch@irif.fr>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.101.1)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 194.100.69.221
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: markus.stenberg@iki.fi
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.kapsi.fi); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/CPfACmPXzXlNqRoGcwBcDW3vpgs>
Subject: Re: [babel] HMAC and MTI [was: rather than ripemd160...]
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:53:47 -0000

On 26 Nov 2018, at 15.46, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
>> I'm not sure if we *can* make [blake2s] MTI in the spec as well (does it
>> need to be defined by a standards track RFC for us to do that?), but if
>> we can, I think we should seriously consider it...
> Opinions?

I like Blake (family of) hash functions so on that front +1; however, no idea how bureaucracy works.

Dave had a good point as well though, comparing -2s and -2b performance on some set of hardware (e.g. arm, mips, intel) might be in order before picking between the two. I am not convinced -2s is the way _forward_. Even now most of hardware in my home is already 64bit ..

-Markus