> Even further than that, I think I'm saying that I would be inclined to > disagree that SHA256 is a mistaken naming. What source do you have that > says the name "SHA2-256" is the right name? From the sources I quoted, > including FIPS 180-4, the name is "SHA256". I suggest, as a general
Err, I meant "SHA-256", not "SHA256", of course. /Simon _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
