Re: [Trans] Policy for adding to IANA registries requested in 6962-bis

Bill Frantz <> Wed, 14 December 2016 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28AB81294EC for <>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:20:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6yDKu6NkKodQ for <>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01D21129A03 for <>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (helo=Williams-MacBook-Pro.local) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1cGxIo-0004mE-Np; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:20:10 -0500
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:20:10 -0800
From: Bill Frantz <>
To: Andrew Ayer <>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <r470Ps-10121i-019CF7E50A5744F38D78ABB70C8C48F5@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Mailsmith 2.4 (470)
X-ELNK-Trace: 3a5e54fa03f1b3e21aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79f478480cc4a34e03554b6b970a3dbf19350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Eran Messeri <>,
Subject: Re: [Trans] Policy for adding to IANA registries requested in 6962-bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:20:32 -0000

On 12/13/16 at 3:59 PM, (Andrew Ayer) wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:32:04 +0000
>Eran Messeri <> wrote:
>>* For Hash Algorithm repository, specify "Expert Review" guiding the
>>Expert to make sure the proposed hash algorithm has public
>>specification and does not suffer from known preimage attacks.
>The hash algorithm also needs collision resistance.
>How precise does the guidance need to be?  "Not suffer from known
>preimage attacks" wouldn't be construed as forbidding SHA-2 because
>there are some very expensive preimage attacks on some rounds, would it?
>Arguably, "suitable for use as a cryptographic hash function" covers
>both preimage and collision resistance, and leaves it to the expert's
>discretion what attacks are worth worrying about.  Would leaving it at
>this provide sufficient guidance?

It might be better to specifically mention the characteristics 
known to be needed along with some general guidance which leans 
on the reviewer's expertise. Perhaps:

"Suitable for use as a cryptographic hash with no known preimage 
or collision attacks. These attacks can damage the integrity of 
the log."

Cheers - Bill

Bill Frantz        |"Insofar as the propositions of mathematics 
refer to
408-356-8506       | reality, they are not certain; and insofar 
they are | certain, they do not refer to reality.” 
-- Einstein