Re: [Hash] Charter discussion, round 1

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Wed, 15 June 2005 22:43 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Digbv-0003Gv-5F; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:43:51 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DigJV-00080y-GE for hash@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:24:49 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA12141 for <hash@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:24:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from stoneport.math.uic.edu ([131.193.178.160]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DiggG-0002OA-Kt for hash@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:48:21 -0400
Received: (qmail 59393 invoked by uid 1016); 15 Jun 2005 22:25:11 -0000
Date: 15 Jun 2005 22:25:11 -0000
Message-ID: <20050615222511.59392.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Automatic-Legal-Notices: See http://cr.yp.to/mailcopyright.html.
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: hash@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Hash] Charter discussion, round 1
References: <p06210210bed50746f518@[10.20.30.249]> <20050614224156.A506B830E6@smtp2.pacifier.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:43:50 -0400
Cc:
X-BeenThere: hash@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: hash.lists.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hash>, <mailto:hash-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/hash>
List-Post: <mailto:hash@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hash-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hash>, <mailto:hash-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: hash-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: hash-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Randomized hashing requires even more protocol changes than moving to a
longer hash, not to mention implementation changes. So it doesn't make
sense to consider randomized hashing without considering longer hashes.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago

_______________________________________________
Hash mailing list
Hash@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hash