Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis (The Transport

[Rob Williams <rwilliams at certicom.com>]

At Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:32:04 -0800

Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > There seem to be a lot of
strong feelings against SHA-224.
> > I looked at the FIPS amendment which defines it, and it
> > doesn't appear to be such a horrible thing.  Can someone
> > explain how NIST got it so wrong?
>
> It's not *bad*. It's just unnecessary.

Agreed. 

Just as SHA-224 is to SHA-256, 
        SHA-384
is to SHA-512: truncated with different IV.

I am looking forward to seeing SHA-384
removed from TLS 1.2.

Thanks!
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls