Subject: Settling the TIGER question

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:56:57 -0500

Now that bis-07 is out, I'd like to get a TIGER/192 issue settled.

First, to be clear: my intent is NOT to question to use of TIGER, to
suggest other hashes are better, or anything of the like.

Bis-07, in section 9.4 reserves algorithm number 6 for TIGER/192, and
section 12.7 elaborates that it is reserved because it does not have
an OID.  Since that was written, TIGER/192 has been assigned an OID :
1.3.6.1.4.1.11591.12.2

I know there have been some comments about dropping TIGER altogether
from the standard.  I have no strong feelings about this either way.
However, if TIGER is going to remain in the standard, then in the
interest of accuracy, we should at least give the OID.

David

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:25:04 -0800

> an OID.  Since that was written, TIGER/192 has been assigned an OID :

Does anyone object to my removing TIGER/192, in the interests of less is
more?

    Jon

---

From: Len Sassaman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:18:25 -0800 (PST)

> Does anyone object to my removing TIGER/192, in the interests of less is

Please do.

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:46:48 -0500

> > Does anyone object to my removing TIGER/192, in the interests of less is

If TIGER/192 is removed, perhaps it would be good if HAVAL-5-160 was
removed as well, for the same reasons.

David

---

From: Len Sassaman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:56:30 -0800 (PST)

> removed as well, for the same reasons.

Yes. And double-width SHA as well. Is there a reason for MD2?

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:06:08 -0500

> Yes. And double-width SHA as well. Is there a reason for MD2?

I've seen it implemented here and there in OpenPGP libraries.  I doubt
it gets very wide use as neither GnuPG or (so far as I know) PGP
implement it.

David

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: 06 Mar 2003 19:43:42 -0500

> Yes. And double-width SHA as well. Is there a reason for MD2?

SHA2 might be interesting in the not-to-distant future; I'd recommend
leaving it in.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       [email-masked]             www.ihtfp.com

---

From: Len Sassaman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:50:48 -0800 (PST)

> SHA2 might be interesting in the not-to-distant future; I'd recommend

Yes, definitely leave SHA2 in. (I think I was one of the people who pushed
to have it added.) "SHA2", or rather "SHA256, SHA384, and SHA512" are hash
algorithm ids 8-10.

What I'm refering to above is the hash algorithm id 4 -- "double-width
SHA".

I would like to see hashes 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 remain, and if possible,
hashes 4, 5, 6, and 7 removed.

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:31:44 -0800

> hashes 4, 5, 6, and 7 removed.

All right -- here's what I'm hearing -- get rid of MD2, Haval, and DW-SHA.
DW-SHA is not the same thing as SHA-256/384/512, sometimes called SHA-2, but
not by NIST.

    Jon

---

From: Werner Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:52:57 +0100

> DW-SHA is not the same thing as SHA-256/384/512, sometimes called SHA-2, but

And TIGER.

---

From: Werner Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 21:52:57 +0100

And TIGER.