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

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

On Oct 3, 2006, at 12:52 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> I take it you are explicitly objecting to the statement that MD5 is  
> a reasonable non-normatively specified choice?
> You have also clearly objected to 128 as a suggestion (The text  
> does NOT mandate a length).
>
> RjS

Yes - MD5 is a cryptographic hash and I thought we all agreed that  
use off cryptographic hash was not the best choice. If we think  
cryptographic hash ideas are a good idea, then we need to explain why.

Using a cryptographic hash, even in an example, is a huge red flag  
for any security person reviewing this. The fact that we used this  
particular one which has significant security issues, is a even  
bigger issue. Partially I think MD5 is totally lame to use here  
because it is slow and offer no advantages over better things and  
partially I am trying to avoid any delays due to security review  
where someone points out we should not be using MD5 in new protocols.  
If the we can't figure out a reasonable hash to suggest, how should  
an implementer figure out what to use. I've been trying to say, I  
don't care what but don't choose a cryptographic one. If people have  
a good reason for wanting MD5, I'm glad to listen but I just had not  
heard the reason yet.




_______________________________________________
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