Re: [babel] [Babel-users] rather than ripemd160...

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Wed, 28 November 2018 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
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 1C94B130F7B for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:39:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
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 3MpD2od-lGy4 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:39:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 119D6128CF3 for <babel@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 03:39:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1543405146; bh=vRO53SS4fB+hpbfgm4cQTAVa8peOy5WAhxAA1z9znGE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ttQZnmo1B/TaBpsIqTP+eWQG5aQefBFbnXNtXAXa/gzWH5c09JOLUTHA9AYC3+A4M 6jHyxKXIZrsRCgW3sLq3r358wke09mDwsPRuzCn31pTcW6vBUiIds2XSVhKD0udljj 5vXFA4OWnpT/I+Cws7H0lH7j0w//tQLXkap65gYyG5rCv1o/RV3rrjPeuWQbOV7PZQ zaGHo7oBiprfoReEzXYXXo1cjo6JWtmMHrsY1xHrUlrPTs3YUDB89Gwm7IVQJRXrT/ WzRefeH9cRxb9HadXj3wGffWp3Jgp7L+RyW26r/5RcyPoGjuVsQyNwxZnBNqwa0kEh mMNL3idD243yA==
To: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Barbara Stark <bs7652@att.com>, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org, babel@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAPDSy+5QDu_kW-f=JWO1cPJJnDwDNpVwxwVC9SxfcE5+EOMpRg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw5fHRm21yEJsabiiOF1ZP7Zh3M_gEgRo0imBOpRGhf0qA@mail.gmail.com> <87in0koun6.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87in0kx98o.fsf@toke.dk> <CAA93jw5gaYgyUX-ABX156_TnFX25Sy5SLyuRgd28fMLfRW4UHA@mail.gmail.com> <871s78x7z0.fsf@toke.dk> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DF44154@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <87pnurwo5e.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPDSy+5QDu_kW-f=JWO1cPJJnDwDNpVwxwVC9SxfcE5+EOMpRg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 12:39:05 +0100
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87o9a9v3c6.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/I3P8-LhgPCpfO2RanjYPIywiCQY>
Subject: Re: [babel] [Babel-users] 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: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:39:16 -0000

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> writes:

> I feel strongly against making anything but SHA-256 mandatory to
> implement.

> It will delay publication

Not if there's already a draft we can simply refer to (like with
SHA-256); I do agree that we shouldn't be trying to pull Blake through
the IETF process if there isn't...

> and not improve the interoperability story.

Why not? If it's not MTI you risk the case where you get to pick between
"good performance on weak devices" and "interoperability with RFC-only
implementations".

-Toke