Message171882
| Author | jcea |
|---|---|
| Recipients | christian.heimes, ezio.melotti, jcea |
| Date | 2012-10-03.13:28:21 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1349270901.78.0.383298518198.issue16113@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
We have MD5, SHA1, sha256, sha512 implemented, to use when openssl is not available. Can we do the same with sha-3?. I would suggest to adopt the reference implementation without extensive optimizations, since we will have them when openssl has them. So we might implement SHA-3 now and integrate OpenSSL implementation later, when available. This is interesting, for instance, because many users of Python 3.4 will have a non "up to date" OpenSSL system library. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-10-03 13:28:21 | jcea | set | recipients: + jcea, christian.heimes, ezio.melotti |
| 2012-10-03 13:28:21 | jcea | set | messageid: <1349270901.78.0.383298518198.issue16113@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012-10-03 13:28:21 | jcea | link | issue16113 messages |
| 2012-10-03 13:28:21 | jcea | create | |