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

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

I feel strongly against making anything but SHA-256 mandatory to implement.
It will delay publication and not improve the interoperability story. That
said, I agree that the Blake2 family is a good fit here so it would be nice
to have bird and babeld support them - but they do not need to be in the
spec.

David

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:59 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> "STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> > FYI. IETF policies re "downrefs" in standards track RFCs is described in
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3967 (and updated by
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8067).
> > In short, it's not prohibited, but careful review is required.
> > Note RFC3967 Section 2 first bullet
> >
> >    There are a number of circumstances in which an IETF document may
> >    need to make a normative reference to a document at a lower maturity
> >    level, but such a reference conflicts with Section 4.2.4 of
> >    [RFC2026].  For example:
> >
> >    o  A standards track document may need to refer to a protocol or
> >       algorithm developed by an external body but modified, adapted, or
> >       profiled by an IETF informational RFC, for example, MD5 [RFC1321]
> >       and HMAC [RFC2104].  Note that this does not override the IETF's
> >       duty to see that the specification is indeed sufficiently clear to
> >       enable creation of interoperable implementations.
>
> Ah, so HMAC itself is already an informational RFC? Great, let's do
> blake2, then! :D
>
> -Toke
>
> _______________________________________________
> Babel-users mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users