Ned Freed wrote:
> Exactly so, and given the current hash function situation that algorithm
> needs
> to be SHA-256.
Is this really the case, or is SHA-256 a sort of generic placeholder
for "something better than SHA-1"? I haven't paid very much attention
to what the cryptographers have been saying about this, but it doesn't
seem clear to me that SHA-256 has been settled on as The short term
replacement. Or has it?
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html