opencontainers
digest: promote blake3 to first-class digest
The dual module approach for blake3 was slightly awkward. Since it provides similar usability with a massive bump in performance, it's extremely likely to land as a registered algorithm in the image-spec.
This PR removes the secondary module, which made it difficult to test as a unit. This may break users who are using HEAD versions of the package. For a new release, this will be backwards compatible. The other drawback is that the zeebo/blake3 will now be a dependency but this can be replaced transparently by the standard libary in the future.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Day [email protected]
it's extremely likely to land as a registered algorithm in the image-spec.
I'm not against this, but I'm not sure we have reached the consensus on the algorithm name. This PR uses "blake3" as the algo name, but https://github.com/opencontainers/image-spec/issues/819 proposes "b3-256".
Is there any actual implementation that has been already using blake3/b3-256/whatever else?
Since blake3 supports multiple digests sizes it seems to me that "blake3" without the digest size (e.g., "blake3-256") is a bad choice for a name. Furthermore, it makes sense to register the 512 bit algorithm as well to have the same collision resistance as SHA512 that you already have registered. "blake3-512" or "b3-512" along with either "blake3-256" or "b3-256" seem to make the most sense for names. This is not a binary compact format like multihash so I favor spelling out "blake3" instead of using "b3". That is my two cents for what it is worth.
since the library you've pulled is is defaulting to 256bit, I think going with @ktarplee is a fine idea. Make the algo name "blake3-256".
And optionally we could also add "blake3-512"