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年06月27日.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年06月27日 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年06月27日 10:32:07 | christian.heimes | set | messageid: <1372329127.46.0.0867946447805.issue16113@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013年06月27日 10:32:07 | christian.heimes | link | issue16113 messages |
| 2013年06月27日 10:32:07 | christian.heimes | create |
|