Message191940
| Author | christian.heimes |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Arfrever, asvetlov, bjornedstrom, christian.heimes, englabenny, ezio.melotti, gregory.p.smith, habnabit, jcea, maker, pitrou, python-dev, sbt |
| Date | 2013-06-27.10:32:07 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1372329127.46.0.0867946447805.issue16113@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Hi Aaron, it's a tempting idea but I have to decline. The API is deliberately limited to the NIST interface. Once OpenSSL gains SHA-3 support we are going to use it in favor for the reference implementation. I don't expect OpenSSL to provide the full sponge API. I also like to keep all options open so I can switch to a different and perhaps smaller implementation in the future. The reference implementation is huge and the binary is more than 400 KB. For comparison the SHA-2 384 + 512 module's binary is just about 60 KB on a 64bit Linux system. Once a a new API has been introduced it's going to take at least two minor Python release and about four to five years to remove it. But I could add a more flexible interface to Keccak's sponge to my standalone sha3 module https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pysha3 ... |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-06-27 10:32:07 | christian.heimes | set | recipients: + christian.heimes, gregory.p.smith, jcea, pitrou, habnabit, ezio.melotti, Arfrever, asvetlov, englabenny, maker, python-dev, sbt, bjornedstrom |
| 2013-06-27 10:32:07 | christian.heimes | set | messageid: <1372329127.46.0.0867946447805.issue16113@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-06-27 10:32:07 | christian.heimes | link | issue16113 messages |
| 2013-06-27 10:32:07 | christian.heimes | create | |