Re: SHA-2

[wlkngowl@unix.asb.com (Mutatis Mutantdis)]

futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex) writes:

>Any particular reason someone called this SHA-2 ?  It sounds a whole lot like
>the revision of the original SHA, called SHA-1, that came out quite a while
>ago. (FIPS 180-1)  This is rather old hat unless they're making a _second_
>revision to the standard, in which case I expect there would have been much
>more noise made about it.

I think that has a bit to do with a question I had, whether it was SHA
and SHA-1 (aka "Revised SHA") but I've found the revised version being
referred to as "SHA-2" in a couple of sources and went with that....
unless there *is* a third revision...?!?

Problem is the memo I saw still referred to the revised algorithm as
SHA.  (Anyone have a URL for FIPS 180-1 Please...?)

Rob.