ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Supporting alternate algorithms

2006-02-21 16:53:10
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?

I think it is fairly clear that SHA-256 is shaping up to be the _short_ term
replacement. It may also prove to be the long term replacement, but I wouldn't
bet the farm on it. Whirlpool is the obvious alternative right now, but who
knows what might emerge in the future.

I personally prefer Whirlpool, but I observe very little support for it in IETF
circles.

                                Ned
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html