Re: RFC v3: Another proposed hash function transition plan
- From
- demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 14, 2017, 15:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CANgJU+UpMu82a09h644GjqKLsYzHq-t7Tv8x=+ybTYP-QqyPtQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1709141722500.4132@virtualbox>
On 14 September 2017 at 17:23, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
Show 18 quoted lines
> Hi Junio, > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > In other words, a long lifetime for the hash absolutely is a design >> > goal. Coping well with an unexpectedly short lifetime for the hash is >> > also a design goal. >> > >> > If the hash function lasts 10 years then I am happy. >> >> Absolutely. When two functions have similar expected remaining life >> and are equally widely supported, then faster is better than slower. >> Otherwise our primary goal when picking the function from candidates >> should be to optimize for its remaining life and wider availability. > > SHA-256 has been hammered on a lot more than SHA3-256.
Last year that was even more true of SHA1 than it is true of SHA-256 today.
Anyway, Yves
-- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"