>Blake2s is 256-bit, while Blake2d is 512-bit. These are the ones I assume >that would be best for addition. The other two, Blake2sp and Blake2bp are >multi-threaded, and are optimized for multi-core CPUs.
It is unfortunate that 's' and 'd' mean different algorithms, while 2sp and 2bp are, presumably, alternative versions of 2s and 2d, respectively. Nobody outside the implementation should know about that second class of difference. And note that one of the longer OpenSSL members, who is very experienced in implementations of crypto, was confused. And is it really 2d and 2bp? Or is one of those [db] letters a typo? Either way, I think it makes a case for changing the names. It is pretty common to use the size as a suffix. I would really like to see blake2-256 and blake2-512 as the common names. And the implementation names, as I said, need never be seen outside of, well, the implementation. :) _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
