IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: WG Last Call: SHA-224

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 29 March 2004 16:39 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11588 for <pkix-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:39:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2TFQ4EK047634; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 07:26:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i2TFQ4WN047633; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 07:26:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from woodstock.binhost.com (woodstock.binhost.com [144.202.240.3]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with SMTP id i2TFQ34N047624 for <ietf-pkix@imc.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 07:26:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from housley@vigilsec.com)
Received: (qmail 1406 invoked by uid 0); 29 Mar 2004 15:15:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Russ-Laptop.vigilsec.com) (141.156.162.193) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2004 15:15:55 -0000
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040329102417.01fddfc8@mail.binhost.com>
X-Sender: housley@mail.binhost.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 10:25:57 -0500
To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>, Tim Polk <tim.polk@nist.gov>, ietf-pkix@imc.org
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: SHA-224
In-Reply-To: <p06100403bc8de602be47@[63.202.92.152]>
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20040329081825.049f3348@mail.binhost.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20040326160906.02f9d000@email.nist.gov> <5.1.0.14.2.20040326160906.02f9d000@email.nist.gov> <5.2.0.9.2.20040329081825.049f3348@mail.binhost.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ietf-pkix@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-pkix/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-pkix.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-pkix-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

Paul:

>At 8:21 AM -0500 3/29/04, Russ Housley wrote:
>>I understand that the computation expense is the same as SHA-256. 
>>However, as you point out, there are times that a shorter hash value is 
>>desirable.
>
>Do we agree that the only times where it is desirable is in severely 
>bandwidth-restricted environments? Or am I missing some other scenario?

It is also useful is you want all of the algorithms in a cipher suite to 
offer the same strength.  I remember a SAAG discussion that this was called 
"impedance match," but I do not particularly like that term.

Russ

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status