From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981861F66E for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:43:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726652AbgHNUnL (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:43:11 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57674 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726229AbgHNUnL (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:43:11 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B795806F6; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:43:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=X2KWwNVovGpU Zf4ykRF5iV4lHrY=; b=qs0OEO9x4nRIlIJn8vKpCwZ1LMUTTKrGxQs/2872WXES Xj99CuivhXlzEEu8XckrU9zxYXVRnOwtOI9K2XSyXXCBHN6WHatccC6uXPeOpPbF XMPboV3NTv6wbGjeEYg3OmmALX+6QlOgPFYoyInq9qz9bNg+DIy91jLGUazs9KQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=lX+W95 Y99bARictdoCA6BwjkmTiCF43CEKGd9VqtnzmtLh0JwLDD0ms7p0jxSq+kwOwpc9 iz/PwLSYhr0GYDiK+6DleoN/mRoQhN91ZhIRwg5f69ToGmdoW45TBCffRu4lNXqA 0lCdPlf7ycRCSi+lICVRm/7n8rbtgAPdE0VoY= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734BB806F5; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:43:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.231.104.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F08F3806F4; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:43:08 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= Cc: "brian m. carlson" , Git Mailing List , Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] protocol-capabilities.txt: clarify "allow-x-sha1-in-want" re SHA-256 References: <20200813224901.2652387-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <13798dfb121c9631e9d811f5f74f9a78c1fcfdf9.1597406877.git.martin.agren@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:43:08 -0700 In-Reply-To: ("Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren=22's?= message of "Fri, 14 Aug 2020 22:35:10 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C3263B60-DE6E-11EA-B7ED-01D9BED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Martin =C3=85gren writes: >> I think we should have either a new sha256 capability or a more >> generic hash-algo capability whose value can be set to sha256. >> Neither the connection initiators or the acceptors should talk >> in sha256 until both ends agreed to do so. > > I think we should, and I think we do. I haven't dug into the details, > but "object-format" looks like it's just that. Ah, Yes, my thinko. > Maybe instead of SHA-1 and SHA-256, this should talk about "whatever ha= s > been negotiated through 'object-format', or SHA-1", similar to brian's > suggestion elsewhere. Yup, that would be wonderful. Thanks.