>>>>> Niels Möller writes:
> With support for SHA3, it seems clear that nettle's naming for sha2
> functions was a mistake. It should be "sha2_256", rather than
> "sha256".
While such a step would be logical, I'd like to note that while
SHA-2 algorithms are widely known as SHA-256, etc., it's the
SHA3-256, etc. forms that seems to be preferred for SHA-3.
There's a logic in keeping the things as they are, too. When
SHA-1 was introduced, it supported only 160 bit size digests, so
there was no need to mention the size explicitly. When SHA-2
appeared, it supported several sizes, but none of them coincided
with the SHA-1's 160 bits, thus the “version” was apparent from
the bit size. At last, came SHA-3, and being the later one, it
has to bear its explicit version number.
[…]
--
FSF associate member #7257
_______________________________________________
nettle-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
