On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Niels Möller <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] (Niels Möller) writes: > >> I think it may be easiest to write some new code based on the pseudocode >> description at http://keccak.noekeon.org/specs_summary.html. > For naming: I called it sha3_256 (since in nettle "sha256" is sha2. I > guess we should have named it sha2_256 back then). Any other > suggestions?
sha3_256, sounds clear enough. > I haven't looked into other types of uses. E.g, does hmac-sha3 make > sense? The Keccak paper mentions keyed modes of operation, maybe that > would be preferable. Maybe it is better to wait and see how it is used as a MAC in protocols then. > I put the interface declarations in sha3.h. I think it makes for better > consistency if we split the current sha.h into sha1.h and sha2.h (and > then we can keep a deprecated sha.h including both, for backwards > compatibility). Sounds good. regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
