IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Tue, 11 May 2010 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.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 BFBC228C147 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 02:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.748, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 ggKVb-fhbFZ3 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 02:32:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (michael.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5017528C128 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2010 02:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-CheckPoint: {4BE93067-0-1B201DC2-1FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.checkpoint.com [194.29.34.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o4B9Sfpr014468; Tue, 11 May 2010 12:28:49 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Tue, 11 May 2010 12:29:18 +0300
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: "'Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)'" <jsalowey@cisco.com>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 12:29:16 +0300
Thread-Topic: Consensus Call: FNV vs SHA1
Thread-Index: AcrwZ71PRYYRYux+TAK9atVr3xufHAAhJf/g
Message-ID: <006FEB08D9C6444AB014105C9AEB133FB48F1B5A9C@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com>
References: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE50A43B479@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
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:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 09:32:30 -0000

(b) - FNV-1a

-----Original Message-----
From: tls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:39 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

Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email