Subject: [Hash] Possible disconnect on the proposed charter

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:26:47 -0700

In re-reading Jon's and Robert's messages, I realized that the 
organization of the proposed charter may be unclear, and that 
unclarity might be what's getting people stuck. (I could be wrong and 
they just don't like the idea of an IETF WG at all...).

The charter's larger work of the proposed WG is:

   The working group will consider the suitability of one-way hash
   functions for use with IETF protocols.  These requirements will be
   published as one or more BCP documents which specify the features and
   characteristics for standards-track one-way hash functions.  The BCP
   documents will also identify information that must be included in any
   request for a hash function to be approved on the standards track.

   . . .

   The optional second phase will identify one or more standards-track
   one-way hash functions that fulfill the requirements stated in the BCP
   documents developed in the first phase.  Guidance will also be developed
   to assist protocol developers in the selection among the standards-track
   one-way hash functions.

The narrower, more immediate work is the salting/truncating work. It 
seems like there is general agreement that the narrower work is of 
limited utility, only aimed at DSA (and, apparently, not even ECDSA).

Do people feel OK with chartering a WG with the larger work more emphasized?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Hash mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hash

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:39:23 -0700 (PDT)

It is not entirely clear to me that we have understanding on what are good
hash functions or have consensus for functional replacement for bad one.
Perhaps it should be considered to first form a IRTF RG to study hash
functions more and consider and compare alternatives to SHA1 algorithm
with some testing done as well.

Now this all does not mean we can't do such research and as part of
IETF WG, but if WG is going to focus primarily on researching HASH 
functions, is it really appropriate for it to be called WG?

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> In re-reading Jon's and Robert's messages, I realized that the organization 
> of the proposed charter may be unclear, and that unclarity might be what's 
> getting people stuck. (I could be wrong and they just don't like the idea of 
> an IETF WG at all...).
>
> The narrower, more immediate work is the salting/truncating work. It seems 
> like there is general agreement that the narrower work is of limited utility, 
> only aimed at DSA (and, apparently, not even ECDSA).
>

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]