On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Christian Heimes <christ...@python.org>wrote:
> Am 12.10.2013 23:04, schrieb Gregory P. Smith: > > agreed with any of these three. > > I'm going for hashlib.pbkdf2_hmac() for now. Right now it's just one > function. We can always add a new module for a high level interface later. > > > that also makes sense... > > > > I'd leave hmac.py around through at least 3.6 but going ahead and moving > > the implementation into hashlib in 3.4 makes sense. > > That gives us the opportunity th provide a faster implementation based > on OpenSSL's HMAC API http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/hmac.html . I'm > also tempted to provide a fast one-shot-wonder function that returns the > MAC as bytes: hmac(name, key, value) -> result > It'd be more consistent with the other hashlib constructors if the one liner was: hashlib.hmac(hash_name_or_func, key, initial_data).digest() (or .hexdigest() for people who want str rather than bytes). -gps
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
