Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0668 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Mon, 10 May 2010 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=274601dc97=uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 4E00C3A695A for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 10:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.693, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 KffcJgaM7RMv for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 10:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.ll.mit.edu (MX1.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.45]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CBDF3A6C1F for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2010 10:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LLE2K7-HUB01.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K7-HUB01.mitll.ad.local) by mx1.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id o4AHn6h8020344; Mon, 10 May 2010 13:49:22 -0400
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0668 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:49:18 -0400
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1
Thread-Index: AcrwZ71PRYYRYux+TAK9atVr3xufHAAAV+ML
Message-ID: <C80DBF5E.A569%uri@ll.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50A43B479@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.4.0.100208
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=1.12.8161:2.4.5, 1.2.40, 4.0.166 definitions=2010-05-10_07:2010-02-06, 2010-05-10, 2010-05-10 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0908210000 definitions=main-1005100129
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 17:51:39 -0000

1. FNV-1a


On 5/10/10  13:39 , "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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

-- 
Regards,
Uri