Re: DH group exchange (Re: SSH key algorithm updates)

denis bider <[email protected]> writes:

> I suggest "sha2-256" for the same reason this was suggested in the
> hmac-sha2-256 case: to make it clear it isn't sha3-256.

Here's a note I wrote for a Nettle release announcement, about this
naming mess, after some discussion on the devel list:

	Finally, a note on the naming of the various "SHA" hash
	functions. Naming is a bit inconsistent; we have, e.g.,

	  SHA1: sha1_digest
	  SHA2: sha256_digest   (not sha2_256_digest)
	  SHA3: sha3_256_digest

	Renaming the SHA2 functions to make Nettle's naming more
	consistent has been considered, but the current naming follows
	common usage. Most documents (including the specification for
	SHA2) refer to 256-bit SHA2 as "SHA-256" or "SHA256" rather
	than "SHA2-256".

I think it will cause least additional confusion to follow the
admittedly confused common usage, "sha256", not "sha2-256". But I don't
have a strong opinion.

Regards,
/Niels

-- 
Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.