- From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:02:09 -0700
- To: Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>
- Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com> wrote: > Ryan, > > In r1.16 of the Editor's Draft, the recognized algorithm names for > SHA-2 algorithms are: > "SHA-2-224" > The SHA-2 224-bit algorithm as specified in Section 6.3 > "SHA-2-256" > The SHA-2 256-bit algorithm as specified in Section 6.2 > "SHA-2-384" > The SHA-2 384-bit algorithm as specified in Section 6.5 > "SHA-2-512" > The SHA-2 512-bit algorithm as specified in Section 6.4 > > I suggest that we use the exact algorithm names used in FIPS 180-3: > "SHA-224", "SHA-256", "SHA-384", and "SHA-512". As you pointed out to > me, these names are also registered in this IANA registry: > http://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-names/hash-function-text-names.xml > > I suggest we reference FIPS 180-4 instead of FIPS 180-3. > > Wan-Teh Sounds good to me. My concern was over SHA-512/224 and SHA-512/256 (which are truncated versions that behave better on 64-bit platforms) and over the eventual/impeding SHA-3 family, which will likely define sizes similar to the existing SHA-1/SHA-2 constructs. I've raised ACTION-37 to track this, as well as any concerns people have. Assuming no issues, the next copy will have this addressed.
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 03:02:43 UTC