Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1

"Robert Dugal" <rdugal@certicom.com> Mon, 10 May 2010 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <rdugal@certicom.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 07A313A67B5 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 11:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 meaPz6z0G4Gj for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 11:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mhs04ykf.rim.net (mhs04ykf.rim.net [216.9.243.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829613A6C04 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2010 11:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 0a666446-b7bb9ae0000009f0-61-4be84ba14f8d
Received: from xch80ykf.rim.net ( [10.102.100.35]) by mhs04ykf.rim.net (RIM Mail) with SMTP id 11.66.02544.1AB48EB4; Mon, 10 May 2010 14:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from XCH57YKF.rim.net ([10.64.31.54]) by xch80ykf.rim.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 10 May 2010 14:08:33 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:07:47 -0400
Message-ID: <7E1DF37F1F42AB4E877E492C308E6AC405942B93@XCH57YKF.rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50A43B479@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1
Thread-Index: AcrwZ71PRYYRYux+TAK9atVr3xufHAAA9coQ
References: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50A43B479@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
From: "Robert Dugal" <rdugal@certicom.com>
To: <tls@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 May 2010 18:08:33.0422 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD8D0AE0:01CAF06B]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAZE=
Subject: Re: [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 18:09:31 -0000

I favor (a) SHA-1 

-- 
Robert Dugal		Senior Software Developer
Certicom Corp.		A Subsidiary of Research In Motion 
rdugal@certicom.com
direct        905.501.3848
fax             905.507.4230
www.certicom.com


-----Original Message-----
From: tls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 1:39 PM
To: tls@ietf.org
Subject: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1

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
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.