On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Niels Möller nisse@lysator.liu.se wrote:
nisse@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) writes:
I think it may be easiest to write some new code based on the pseudocode description at http://keccak.noekeon.org/specs_summary.html.
For naming: I called it sha3_256 (since in nettle "sha256" is sha2. I guess we should have named it sha2_256 back then). Any other suggestions?
sha3_256, sounds clear enough.
I haven't looked into other types of uses. E.g, does hmac-sha3 make sense? The Keccak paper mentions keyed modes of operation, maybe that would be preferable.
Maybe it is better to wait and see how it is used as a MAC in protocols then.
I put the interface declarations in sha3.h. I think it makes for better consistency if we split the current sha.h into sha1.h and sha2.h (and then we can keep a deprecated sha.h including both, for backwards compatibility).
Sounds good.
regards, Nikos