- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 08:10:14 -0400
- To: "W3c-Ietf-Xmldsig (E-mail)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
Well, no one has really spoken in favor of MD5. If there are a number of people opposed to including it as optional and no one really in favor, the consensus is pretty clear. :-) Donald From: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com> Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 01:39:40 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <199910060539.BAA07233@www19.w3.org> To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com> Cc: "W3c-Ietf-Xmldsig (E-mail)" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> References: <199910060437.AAA03772@torque.pothole.com> Date: 05 Oct 1999 22:39:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd"'s message of "Wed, 06 Oct 1999 00:37:57 -0400" Message-ID: <kjyadhxd2t.fsf@romeo.rtfm.com> >"Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com> writes: >> >11. Section 7.1 -- Please remove all references to MD5. We should not be >> >pushing the older potentially bad hash algorithms (after all MD2 is not here >> >either). SHA1 will cover our needs until the AES hash algorithm comes along >> >> I'd be interested in others input on this point. MD5 was >> traditionally the hash algorithm used in IETF protocols until SHA1 >> came along. Are there examples of IETF protocols with SHA1 but >> without MD5? >I can't think of one off-hand, however, the newer TLS ciphersuites >are SHA-1 only. > >In any case, I agree with Barbara and Jim. Dobbertin's made >enough inroads into MD5 that I'd rather not see it endorsed. > >-Ekr > >-- >[Eric Rescorla ekr@rtfm.com] > PureTLS - free SSLv3/TLS software for Java > http://www.rtfm.com/puretls/ >
Received on Thursday, 7 October 1999 08:10:18 UTC