W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Proposal for hash functions in SPARQL 1.1

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:59:31 +0100
Message-ID: <4E8487D3.8030008@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org


On 29/09/11 14:06, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Reduce the number of library (required) functions to
>
> Please put your (+1 | 0 | -1) on each of:
>
> Proposal 1:
> SHA1
> MD5
>
> Proposal 2:
> SHA1
> MD5
> SHA256
>
> Proposal 3:
> SHA1
> MD5
> SHA256
> SHA512
>
> Proposal 4:
> Other (with details)
>
>
> Variations: leave the other functions in as "informative, not required"
> and leave the keywords in the grammar.
>
> Andy
>

Sandro came up with:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core2/#sec-MessageDigests

which mentions certain SHAx algorithms so it gives us an external 
reason for choosing a certain set:

Proposal 5:
MD5
SHA1
SHA256
SHA512
SHA384
SHA512

(i.e. remove SHA224, but that's the problmeatic one for the commenter 
(Jeen) because it's not in the core Java runtime).

http://download.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/
http://download.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/StandardNames.html#MessageDigest

Do any programming languages have problems with this set?

	Andy
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 15:00:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT