On 10/27/21 12:08 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 09:56, Tianjia Zhang
> <[email protected]> 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?
>
Sorry for the late reply. This is just to fix the ambiguity that may be
caused by the macro name. It seems that there is no need to modify it.
Please ignore this patch.
Kind regards,
Tianjia