Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add privacy considerations #99
Add privacy considerations #99
Changes from 8 commits
f0d1973
73fe66c
5fcf4c2
39cdb6b
28b95e4
d68877a
1688a91
8ac634d
e1a515c
8c1547d
cd7627a
6f8cf64
ae75903
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am not sure I understand the remark
At this moment, the usage of SHA256 is cast in concrete for the canonicalization algorithm. I am not familiar how HMAC works, but would that mean to use a different function instead of SHA256?
Note that we discussed, at some point, to allow the user to set the hashing algorithm instead of fixing it (which is entirely possible because the algorithm does not depend on the specificities of SHA256) but I am not sure we have had a WG resolution on that. I guess if we go along this proposal, than that issue should be raised explicitly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is a similar remark, with the difference that we have not, in my recollection, discussed to add a nonce to the algorithm (I presume to be used with the hash function). I think it would be possible and probably worthwhile to allow that, but that would require a separate WG resolution (and further test cases, b.t.w.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It may be better to just make it clear that other specs may parameterize the hash function using whatever they like -- noting that it will not longer be URDNA2015 (or whatever we end up calling it), but instead some variant.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Naming aside, I would expect all parameters would have a default, probably using SHA256 for hash, no nonce, and sorting just the good old unicode sorting as now. Ie, if we do these additions with defaults we would not harm deployed code (I presume that is your worry, @dlongley). Defining another spec that does exactly the same but parametrizing the hash function sounds a bit of an overkill to me...