- From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:47:17 -0700
- To: Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>
- Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote: > 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. wtc resolved ACTION-37 in r1.21. Not sure why it didn't send mail to this effect.
Received on Monday, 27 August 2012 23:47:44 UTC