[Please fix your email client; you dropped all non-list recipients from Cc, and I had to manually add them back...] On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 01:02:42PM -0500, Ken Goldman wrote: > On 2/10/2020 12:01 PM, Van Leeuwen, Pascal wrote: > > Well, the current specification surely doesn't define anything else and is > > already over a decade old. So what would be the odds that they add a > > different blocksize variant_now_ AND still call that SM3-something? > > I just got a note from a cryptographer who said there were discussions last > year about a future SM3 with 512 bit output. > > Given that, why not plan ahead and use sm3-256? Is there any downside? > Is the cost any more than 4 bytes in some source code? If renaming sm3 to sm3-256 in the crypto API, no. If adding sm3-256 alongside sm3, then yes there is a cost to that because from the crypto API's perspective they will be separate algorithms that each need to be registered, tested, etc. - Eric
