On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 18:08 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 09:56, Tianjia Zhang > <tianjia.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > According to https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-oscca-cfrg-sm3-01.html > > , > > SM3 always produces a 256-bit hash value and there are no plans for > > other length development, so there is no ambiguity in the name of > > sm3. > > > > What is the point of these changes? Having '256' in the identifiers > is merely redundant and not factually incorrect, so why can't we just > leave these as they are? Me too on this. Plus the various standards bodies we follow are still using the 256 suffix and it's not clear they'll change. Finally, I'm not sure, given the confusion over sha256 and sha3-256, that the IETF won't eventually decide that all hash algorithms should be designated by <algorithm>-<bitlength> in which case this will get churned again ... James
