Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1

Hovav Shacham <hovav@hovav.net> Tue, 11 May 2010 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <hovav@hovav.net>
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 77DE03A6ABF for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 20:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 QqU6WJypd+nq for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 20:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iport-c2-out.ucsd.edu (iport-c2-out.ucsd.edu [132.239.0.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419A928C10D for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2010 20:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAGdn6EuE7zNQ/2dsb2JhbACfFbpZhRQEg0E
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,204,1272870000"; d="scan'208";a="251440953"
Received: from csesmtp2.ucsd.edu (HELO cse-smtp.ucsd.edu) ([132.239.51.80]) by iport-c2-out.ucsd.edu with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 10 May 2010 20:09:31 -0700
Received: from [128.54.49.152] (unknown [128.54.49.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by cse-smtp.ucsd.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D845005C for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2010 20:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
From: Hovav Shacham <hovav@hovav.net>
In-Reply-To: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50A43B479@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 20:09:30 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <B1EE4FEB-6E4D-49EB-A24E-9BAE5CE3ECB9@hovav.net>
References: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50A43B479@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
To: TLS Working Group <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
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: Tue, 11 May 2010 03:09:45 -0000

On May 10, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) 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

a) I favor SHA-1.

-hs.