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

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

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).

> 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