Re: Instance Digests in HTTP (RFC3230)

Isn't more digest values worse for interoperability?  Is there an overriding
security concern that would justify worse interoperability?

Lisa

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>wrote:

> I'd like to update the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest
> Algorithm Values registry [1] created by RFC3230.
>
> Current values are MD5, SHA, UNIXsum, UNIXcksum.
>
> I'd like to add SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512.
> My metalinkhttp ID [2] lists these in the IANA considerations section.
>
> I'd also like to find out about current support of Instance Digests on
> the client & server side.
>
> Should I keep these registrations in the metalinkhttp ID, or separate
> them [attached]? They're not specifically tied to metalinkhttp.
>
> Other questions...
> Current registry: MD5 lists both RFC1521 and RFC20456 for base64
> encoding. Should this draft update it to refer to just one?
>
> Current registry: SHA link ( http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fip180-1.txt )
> is no longer valid. Should this draft update it?
>
> If we update SHA in the registry, should this draft refer to SHS or
> RFC3174?
>
> --
> (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
>  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
>
> [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-metalinkhttp
>