- From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:49:19 -0400
- To: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, lde008@dms.isg.mot.com
From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie> To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com> Cc: "Brian LaMacchia" <bal@microsoft.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, lde008@dms.isg.mot.com In-reply-to: <200104180357.XAA0000059340@torque.pothole.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:58:32 +0100 Message-Id: <20010418175832.3498C4424F@yog-sothoth.ie.baltimore.com> >Hi guys, > >I dislike the truncation option on the two SHA digests. The fact >that their underlying implementations are similar will probably >be entirely hidden from XMLDSIG implementors who will likely do >MessageDigest.getInstance ("SHA-384") or equivalent. Truncation >will add significant (relative) complexity in this (probable) >situation. OK, unless some support springs up in the next day or two, the next revision of my draft will drop the truncation optional parameters to SHA-384 and SHA-512. >I'd suggest, for consideration, the type foo#pkcs7SignedData >pointing at a PKCS#7 signed data with associated certs and CRLs. >While not necessarily _good_, it is a fairly common container. OK. >I could not find draft-eastlake-uri-fqdn-param-00.txt but I >personally would prefer a single base URL (not the XMLDSIG >namespace) that suggests the common origin of these URIs. It's at <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-uri-fqdn-param-00.txt> Donald >Merlin > >r/dee3@torque.pothole.com/2001.04.17/23:57:46 >> >>From: "Brian LaMacchia" <bal@microsoft.com> >>Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:43:47 -0400 (EDT) >>Resent-Message-Id: <200104172143.RAA08733@www19.w3.org> >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:11:39 -0700 >>Message-ID: <BCDB2C3F59F5744EBE37C715D66E779CEAB65F@red-msg-04.redmond.corp.m >>icrosoft.com> >>To: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>, >> <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org> >>Cc: <lde008@dms.isg.mot.com> >> >>>Two questions: >>> >>>1) Why did you choose to use URLs that were not of the form >>>"http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#<something>", where the something is >>>sha256, sha284, etc. Ideally these should probably be NIST-defined >>>identifiers, and failing that I would have expected them to follow the >>>XMLDSIG naming scheme. >> >>Variously: I was taking my own advice from >>draft-eastlake-uri-fqdn-param-00.txt; NIST in their draft seems to >>only define OIDs, not URIs; and these additional URIs are not >>officially part of the XMLDSIG standard nor is their naming and >>compilation a work item of this working group. However, as long as it >>does not violate some official policy of the IETF or W3C (which my >>fqdn draft certainly isn't yet), I'd generally be willing to go along >>with working group consensus on this matter as well as on the one >>below. >> >>>2) Why did you add the truncation options to SHA-384 and SHA-512? I >>>can't really see a point in this; if you want a shorter hash output then >>>just use a shorter hash function. DO you have a particular scenario in >>>mind that would likely want to use a subset of a SHA-384 or SHA-512 >>>hash? >> >>SHA-384 and SHA-512 are 99.9+% identical. The only difference is the >>value of the eight starting constants and that SHA-384 is the result >>of truncating the 512 bit result. Anyone implementing both of these >>will share the 99.9+% of identical code between them and call it from >>an outer routine that provides the initial constants and, for SHA-384, >>truncates the results. It seems like < 0.01% more work to let people >>get 400 bit or 320 bit or other odd size hashes <= 512 if they have >>such a need... >> >>> --bal >> >>By the way, hopefully the final revision of draft-eastlake-sha1-01.txt >>will get publicly posted next week and in not too long it should be an >>Informational RFC documenting sample code to do SHA-1. I'm planning >>on also doing a couple of drafts covering SHA-256/384/512. >> >>Thanks, >>Donald >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:dee3@torque.pothole.com] >>>Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 8:59 PM >>>To: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org >>>Cc: lde008@dms.isg.mot.com >>>Subject: additional XMLDSIG URIs >>> >>> >>> >>>My first partial draft of additional XMLDSIG URIs is at >>><ftp://ftp.pothole.com/pub/dee3/draft-eastlake-xmldsig-uri-00.txt> >>> >>>Donald >>> >>>===================================================================== >>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com >>> 155 Beaver Street +1 508-634-2066(h) >>> Milford, MA 01757 USA +1 508-261-5434(w)
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 08:49:56 UTC