[Hash] Possible disconnect on the proposed charter

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 21 July 2005 17:26 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dvep0-0001Ox-Vc; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:26:58 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dveoz-0001N1-4a for hash@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:26:57 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20196 for <hash@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:26:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from above.proper.com ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvfJ2-0007gp-Ve for hash@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:58:02 -0400
Received: from [] (adsl-66-125-125-65.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net []) (authenticated bits=0) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j6LHQngk081407 for <hash@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:26:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0623096ebf0589592a84@[]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:26:47 -0700
To: Hash WG <hash@ietf.org>
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Subject: [Hash] Possible disconnect on the proposed charter
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

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