Re: [Sip] Good Hash: draft-ietf-sip-fork-loop-fix-03

[Robert Sparks <rjsparks at estacado.net>]

There are other changes to the draft that I've agreed to make, so  
there will be a new version (shortly).

This question isn't pinned down yet though. The draft _doesn't_  
require any specific hash. It gives advice on a reasonable choice.
It goes further to characterize properties of other choices an  
implementation might make, where it trips over this bit-count that gave
people different kinds of heatburn.

I propose just pulling the bit-length description and instead point  
to the lack-of-collision property that folks need to take into account.
We are already careful not to say "cryptographic", but I'll probably  
add a comment making the lack-of-cryptographic-requirement
more explicit.

RjS

On Oct 3, 2006, at 1:21 PM, Dean Willis wrote:

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
> > I don't think we should require any specific hash but I think it  
> > would be nice to give implementors some advice on what might be a  
> > reasonable choice.
>
> So does this mean we need a change to the draft, or did we decide  
> to stand with the current text?
>
> --
> Dean


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip