Re: [TLS] FNV versus SHA-1 in cached info

["Kemp, David P." <[e-mail]>]

> [Nico] By accepting that "hash agility" goes with
> "cryptographic hash function" even when you don't need
> nor depend on its cryptographic properties you've simply
> caused yourself to do a sizeable amount of pointless work (FNV).

What work is involved in bringing a 5 LOC algorithm like FNV into
greater visibility and use?  Hardly any -- certainly not a sizeable
amount, and certainly not pointless.  Having identified an optimal
solution (small, fast, sufficient), it would now be a step
backwards to switch to a sub-optimal solution (larger, slower,
more-than-sufficient).


> [Simon] If we know when designing a protocol that the normal
> cryptographic properties are not essential, and that an algorithm
> like FNV will suffice, it saves everyone the costs associated with
> that review.  This is only one argument for FNV, there are others.

Yes.


Dave