| 1 |
Hi Michal, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 02:49:12PM +0000, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I don't really care which one we use, so long as it's not already |
| 5 |
> > broken or too obscure/new. So in other words, any one of SHA2-256, |
| 6 |
> > SHA2-512, SHA3, BLAKE2b, BLAKE2s would be fine with me. Can we just |
| 7 |
> > pick one and roll with it? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Back when we added BLAKE2b, the idea was to eventually remove SHA512 |
| 10 |
> (the previous hash). However, this was rejected afterwards. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Maybe we should pick that back up? Do you remember the ultimate |
| 13 |
rationale for rejecting it? Do you suppose those are still valid? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Jason |
Archives