IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1

"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Mon, 10 May 2010 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jsalowey@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2260B3A6BEE for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 10:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.165
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.434, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2VGHogr-spvb for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 10:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF41F3A6C64 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2010 10:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAFfh50urR7H+/2dsb2JhbACRXoxFcaN1mU2FFASDQQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,363,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="195260421"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2010 17:39:29 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4AHdTc8014522 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2010 17:39:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 10 May 2010 10:39:29 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 10:39:28 -0700
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50A43B479@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1
Thread-Index: AcrwZ71PRYYRYux+TAK9atVr3xufHA==
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2010 17:39:29.0320 (UTC) FILETIME=[BDFC3280:01CAF067]
Subject: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 17:42:54 -0000

I don't see much new being added to this discussion at this point.  I'd
like to close on this.  If you have an opinion please indicate if:

a) You favor SHA-1
b) You favor FNV-1a

Thanks,

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email