Re: WG Last Call: SHA-224

[pgut001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Gutmann)]

Jack Lloyd <lloyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>If someone really want this and wants it RFCized, then fine, I just don't see
>the logic behind it.

That's exactly whay I pointed out months ago when it first came up.  It's not
useful in any normal Internet protocol that requires key management because
they all use the output of a PRF (usually via HMAC), it's not useful in
signing because they use PKCS #1, but it is going to be pushed through no
matter what, so we may as well just sit back and..., well, ignore it.  If the
RFC were however to admit that "There's no requirement for this in any
Internet security protocol" (or whatever the text is that gets used for other
oddball algorithms that people do RFCs for) it'd be helpful in addressing
arguments from people who wanted it supported just because it's mentioned in
some RFC.

Peter.