From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:42:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Why BLAKE2?
Message-ID: <22708.18670.790503.11385@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20170227143747.GB297@x4>

Markus Trippelsdorf writes ("Re: Why BLAKE2?"):
> On 2017.02.27 at 13:00 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > For brevity I will write `SHA' for hashing with SHA-1, using current
> > unqualified object names, and `BLAKE' for hasing with BLAKE2b, using
> > H<hex> object names.
> 
> Why do you choose BLAKE2? SHA-2 is generally considered still fine and
> would be the obvious choice. And if you want to be adventurous then
> SHA-3 (Keccak) would be the next logical candidate.

I don't have a strong opinion.  Keccak would be fine too.
We should probably avoid SHA-2.

The main point of my posting was not to argue in favour of a
particular hash function :-).

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.