Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> writes: > fre 2012-11-30 klockan 12:56 +0700 skrev Ivan Shmakov: >> >> 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.
> I am inclined to agree -- the name "SHA256" seems to be more popular > than "SHA2-256" or even "SHA2" according to Google hits. Grep RFCs that > use the term "SHA256" and that is also the more common usage. Going > back to the NIST specification: [...] > If the naming in Nettle isn't an obvious mistake, I would prefer not to > change things. However, I don't really care strongly. If I may rephrase what you're both saying, it's that everybody else seems to be using the "mistaken" naming, and then it makes more sense for Nettle to stick to that common usage. That argument makes sense to me; maybe I got a bit carried away. I think I'd still like to do the header split, sha.h -> sha1.h and sha2.h, for better consistency within Nettle, but that's less intrusive, and backwards compatibility is trivial, with a sha.h including both. Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
