You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We are currently defining the collision resistance of Rpo256 as a constant for the type.
However, this will not always be true, as we might drop it to 126-bits, depending on the capacity registers setup.
Ideally, we should split the Rpo256 into two distinct types, and set the collision attribute/capacity setup strategies individually. This way, we would create a better distinction and unmistakable representation of what we should expect from the implementation.
We should evaluate the options we have available and solve the comment below.
We are currently defining the collision resistance of Rpo256 as a constant for the type.
However, this will not always be true, as we might drop it to 126-bits, depending on the capacity registers setup.
Ideally, we should split the
Rpo256
into two distinct types, and set the collision attribute/capacity setup strategies individually. This way, we would create a better distinction and unmistakable representation of what we should expect from the implementation.We should evaluate the options we have available and solve the comment below.
Originally posted by @bobbinth in #68 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: