Re: [Hash] Possible disconnect on the proposed charter

"william(at)" <> Thu, 21 July 2005 17:39 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvf1H-00076E-JE; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:39:39 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvf1F-00070D-B6 for; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:39:37 -0400
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20912 for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:39:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvfVJ-00005v-AE for; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:10:42 -0400
Received: from (sokol []) by (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j6LHdNd0017669; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:39:23 -0700
Received: from localhost (william@localhost) by (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id j6LHdNht017666; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:39:23 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: william owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "william(at)" <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [Hash] Possible disconnect on the proposed charter
In-Reply-To: <p0623096ebf0589592a84@[]>
Message-ID: <>
References: <p0623096ebf0589592a84@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Cc: Hash WG <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

It is not entirely clear to me that we have understanding on what are good
hash functions or have consensus for functional replacement for bad one.
Perhaps it should be considered to first form a IRTF RG to study hash
functions more and consider and compare alternatives to SHA1 algorithm
with some testing done as well.

Now this all does not mean we can't do such research and as part of
IETF WG, but if WG is going to focus primarily on researching HASH 
functions, is it really appropriate for it to be called WG?

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> In re-reading Jon's and Robert's messages, I realized that the organization 
> of the proposed charter may be unclear, and that unclarity might be what's 
> getting people stuck. (I could be wrong and they just don't like the idea of 
> an IETF WG at all...).
> The charter's larger work of the proposed WG is:
>  The working group will consider the suitability of one-way hash
>  functions for use with IETF protocols.  These requirements will be
>  published as one or more BCP documents which specify the features and
>  characteristics for standards-track one-way hash functions.  The BCP
>  documents will also identify information that must be included in any
>  request for a hash function to be approved on the standards track.
>  . . .
>  The optional second phase will identify one or more standards-track
>  one-way hash functions that fulfill the requirements stated in the BCP
>  documents developed in the first phase.  Guidance will also be developed
>  to assist protocol developers in the selection among the standards-track
>  one-way hash functions.
> The narrower, more immediate work is the salting/truncating work. It seems 
> like there is general agreement that the narrower work is of limited utility, 
> only aimed at DSA (and, apparently, not even ECDSA).
> Do people feel OK with chartering a WG with the larger work more emphasized?
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> _______________________________________________
> Hash mailing list

William Leibzon
Elan Networks

Hash mailing list