[PATCH v3 0/2] use SM3 instead of SM3_256

[James Bottomley]

On Tue, 2021-10-26 at 18:08 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 09:56, Tianjia Zhang
> <tianjia.zhang at linux.alibaba.com> 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