[Babel-users] Blake2S, blake2B or neither? [was: rather than ripemd160...]

[Dave Taht]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:23 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke at toke.dk> wrote:
>
> Juliusz Chroboczek <jch at irif.fr> writes:
>
> >>> With these numbers, I withdraw my support of including anything else
> >>> than SHA256 as MTI. I think specifying Blake2B or 2S as well makes
> >>> sense (mostly for crypto robustness reasons for having alternative
> >>> that is specified) but making it MAY-SHOULD seems sensible to me.
> >
> >> I can probably live with that :)
> >
> > Excellent, it looks like we're converging.  Thanks to both of you for the
> > informative and kind discussion.
> >
> > At this stage, I see four possibilities:
> >
> >   (1) leave the document as it is;
> >   (2) add a mention that implementation of Blake2S is RECOMMENDED (SHOULD);
> >   (3) add a mention that implementation of Blake2B is RECOMMENDED;
> >   (4) add a mention that implementation of both 2B and 2S is RECOMMENDED.
> >
> > I am in favour of (1), since I am convinced that SHA256 is fast enough for
> > all reasonable devices.  (2) makes sense to me, and I won't oppose it.
> > I'll need some convincing in order to do (3) or (4), since Blake2B does
> > not appear bring any significant speed advantage over SHA256.
>
> I'm in favour of (2).

2 is fine. Would still prefer MUST. Would also like an arm32 + neon
blake benchmark.

>
> > In either case, I'm planning to implement SHA256, Blake2B and Blake2S in
> > the reference implementation.
>
> Cool. I'll do the same in Bird, then :)
>
> -Toke
>
> _______________________________________________
> Babel-users mailing list
> Babel-users at alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users



-- 

Dave Täht
CTO, TekLibre, LLC
http://www.teklibre.com
Tel: 1-831-205-9740