Hi Ken,
On 10/20/21 6:26 AM, Ken Goldman wrote:
On 10/11/2021 3:02 AM, Tianjia Zhang wrote:
Thanks for your attention. This is really tricky. I will contact
trustedcomputinggroup first and give some suggestions, It would be
best if a more standard algorithm name can be used from the source of
the specification.
This was discussed in the TCG's TPM WG in February, 2020. At the time,
someone said that there was a possibility of a 512-bit version in the
future.
For TCG members:
https://members.trustedcomputinggroup.org/wg/TPMWG/mail/thread/61442#136758
My guess is that, since it's already in many TCG specs and code, TCG
will want to leave it as is.
I got it. thanks for your information.
Best regards,
Tianjia
