I second that – and thanks John for the explanation!! Leonard
From: John Mattsson <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 4:56 AM To: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [COSE] Why is SHA-3 not supported in COSE? EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments. Hi Carsten, I think that is a great idea. Cheers, John Sent from Commodore VIC-20 ________________________________ From: Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 10:48:47 AM To: John Mattsson <[email protected]> Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [COSE] Why is SHA-3 not supported in COSE? Hi John, On 2025-06-26, at 10:14, John Mattsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don’t remember the discussion, but SHAKE are the only variants of the SHA-3 > family you ever needed. The fixed length SHA-3 variant are quite useless, > they are slower and much less flexible. I think it would have been much > better if the fixed length SHA-3 were never standardized. Unfortunately the > naming often makes people miss SHAKE. Should we ask for a note to be added by IANA to the SHAKE/TurboSHAKE registrations, containing the word “SHA-3” and explaining that there is no intention to use SHA-3 itself for the SHA-3 family? Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
