Eran, to my knowledge there is no relationship between the two
registries, besides some overlap. The registry you mention appears to
be just hash function names and references a few X.509 RFCs. I don't
know about the history but it seems to be a more generic list. (We
reference that registry in draft-bryan-metalink).
Here is the registry draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update
would update:
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Digest Algorithm Values
http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-dig-alg/http-dig-alg.xhtml
RFC 3230, which created this registry, doesn't refer to it by name,
which isn't too helpful in finding it. The algorithms haven't been
updated, so the newest entry is SHA, and some other references were
inconsistent (different base64 RFCs) and outdated (SHA), which this
draft fixes. It also includes values which are not in the other
registry: UNIXsum, UNIXcksum. "All digest-algorithm values are
case-insensitive."
(We also reference this registry in draft-bryan-metalinkhttp).
I agree, SHA vs sha-1 in the registries could be confusing but both
these registries have co-existed for 7 years. I don't know how much
either has been used in practice, besides our 2 drafts.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav
<eran(_at_)hueniverse(_dot_)com> wrote:
I am supportive of updating *a* registry.
The OAuth working group has an open requirement for standard identifiers to
describe hash/digest functions.
What is not clear to me is the relationship of this registry and:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/hash-function-text-names/
which seems to overlap.
I am not sure why we need both, and if we do (because they are protocol
specific and required for interoperability), how should a new specification
decide which to use or if a new registry is required. For example my
uneducated reading of 4572 suggests it is not exactly the same use case as
the previous RFCs using that registry.
In addition, using different tokens for the same algorithm across protocols
seems like a bad idea (lower case, upper case, SHA vs sha-1).
And since both include MD5... arguments about appropriate hash algorithm to
increase security fail.
EHL
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-announce-
bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 6:44 AM
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update
(Additional Hash Algorithms for HTTP Instance Digests) to Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'Additional Hash Algorithms for HTTP Instance Digests '
<draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-values-update-03.txt> as an
Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2010-01-01. Exceptionally,
comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bryan-http-digest-algorithm-
values-update-03.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=
19094&rfc_flag=0
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
--
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
)) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf