Re: [babel] [Babel-users] Blake2S, blake2B or neither? [was: rather than ripemd160...]

Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> Sun, 02 December 2018 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dave.taht@gmail.com>
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 BD4E4130E6C for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 17:07:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=gmail.com
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 ZlJ-itDnr5gS for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 17:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x743.google.com (mail-qk1-x743.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::743]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7065129A87 for <babel@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 17:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x743.google.com with SMTP id q1so5396633qkf.13 for <babel@ietf.org>; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 17:07:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=C0viAuY+vafvtZVcMni+bFDdZ1GwZzkfaCVK9q5aMCw=; b=dZXbU+xY9XVzxxDKmM8+nznZXcWdkmcwArvHo3tOthJhmAVE6B4qUOlJ//nQWnpZS2 ri58gBDdu1Ouox4S1HefB7x0GNuTjl6d0mRPAkSkKBs+XMYKfcuULmIoAPJOHppBitGd qHoO9DlzPaZBzQTOwEQiItHoABrBapXPglQhtjHPM2sMmS+XtsmEIU3GHPD712fdH8Za 9tiTXdIX0znphyejsk8lpEJHqbNstcEPE1Q4nLR1MLq8dWZWdZB8DuK2oIS5w8ZDVFZ9 jtuUHjpYDo4iNMSNybu+PO8xSREhjx3SU2ZJvE53eefs4zUp8mXQEk9b11OLxilhM2O7 vfmw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=C0viAuY+vafvtZVcMni+bFDdZ1GwZzkfaCVK9q5aMCw=; b=RQTdpZzK89Lowq8nlH4drZ9V8oKlVhIL2Di3OYnzDsjvBB2kFAVdAPuo6mk5BLkaTF ie6RDA07UdpFBRND8R8I26NEfQFF23JZWXQhLTzfUEmFDGBXmEmUaZfjRax3YScHUtWn 3pevJJy+NWAvbAYvBDOBoZ/uaso8DmKFzqjAuwSJTmKhfZmYgB/D1v3ty3JfdparSHDz w4hTCZMk57gzVkV7iUZVKtguv0IWuMjMM8okmek40VNPvnSVP9w0q5eFsFfkuoJdLqEF nU3vazCOXFre75vU09TU68JlLOYqxum8pTbcAhc6RtfH1iAckYcv2cIakeC9T0jVZzD8 SnEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWYM2b4n6AGBvmXvuUyeQkiXtd5mL7WlpMPJh9L4LxTtHpLb8Gai 6AbANuRs76dvLa3thcojERHmxfSINoiWWJ2H6b0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VlpxmNAk46SGIJip7m9j1Ql4fKAZeCDqM16MSj5mPGBtoDaRXjcP1jUBF6bOhINBn/HbIegLXMV6SvNzv4sG8=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:18d5:: with SMTP id 82mr10003206qky.65.1543712850637; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 17:07:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <87o9a9v3c6.fsf@toke.dk> <875zwhxv28.wl-jch@irif.fr> <8736rl16yj.fsf@taht.net> <87lg5cxuql.fsf@taht.net> <1C6B19AE-EAA7-4329-A364-8E4C059DAC01@iki.fi> <87woouq24j.fsf@toke.dk> <87in0e6c6v.wl-jch@irif.fr> <87o9a6pumz.fsf@toke.dk>
In-Reply-To: <87o9a6pumz.fsf@toke.dk>
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 17:07:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA93jw4uqHj0Yqic0wVzMVhEsARkorwxODJGuzZDeR8JTVhjeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?VG9rZSBIw7hpbGFuZC1Kw7hyZ2Vuc2Vu?= <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, babel-users <babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/goyvk1z0eaghk6JCN8V9J8wvFV8>
Subject: Re: [babel] [Babel-users] Blake2S, blake2B or neither? [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: Sun, 02 Dec 2018 01:07:34 -0000

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:23 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>
> Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> writes:
>
> >>> With these numbers, I withdraw my support of including anything else
> >>> than SHA256 as MTI. I think specifying Blake2B or 2S as well makes
> >>> sense (mostly for crypto robustness reasons for having alternative
> >>> that is specified) but making it MAY-SHOULD seems sensible to me.
> >
> >> I can probably live with that :)
> >
> > Excellent, it looks like we're converging.  Thanks to both of you for the
> > informative and kind discussion.
> >
> > At this stage, I see four possibilities:
> >
> >   (1) leave the document as it is;
> >   (2) add a mention that implementation of Blake2S is RECOMMENDED (SHOULD);
> >   (3) add a mention that implementation of Blake2B is RECOMMENDED;
> >   (4) add a mention that implementation of both 2B and 2S is RECOMMENDED.
> >
> > I am in favour of (1), since I am convinced that SHA256 is fast enough for
> > all reasonable devices.  (2) makes sense to me, and I won't oppose it.
> > I'll need some convincing in order to do (3) or (4), since Blake2B does
> > not appear bring any significant speed advantage over SHA256.
>
> I'm in favour of (2).

2 is fine. Would still prefer MUST. Would also like an arm32 + neon
blake benchmark.

>
> > In either case, I'm planning to implement SHA256, Blake2B and Blake2S in
> > the reference implementation.
>
> Cool. I'll do the same in Bird, then :)
>
> -Toke
>
> _______________________________________________
> Babel-users mailing list
> Babel-users@alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users



-- 

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740