On 04/13/2013 02:42 PM, Niels Möller wrote:
Why? Is "estream" clearer than "r12"? Do you expect more functions with the estream prefix? I'm not sure I like it as a prefix (I mean, we don't call it "nist_aes", just "aes").
Do you think that using salsa20r12 is better? I thought that associating a name (estream) is more memorable than just the number of rounds. And if you use the number of rounds as a distinguisher then it comes the question why 12 and not 8 or 16? So at some point you'll have to clarify that r12 is actually the estream salsa20.
Estream doesn't really compare with AES because estream selected 5 ciphers as winners instead of one so it cannot be given simply the estream name (estream was the stream cipher competition, ecrypt was the organizer).
That's why I prefer the name estream-salsa20 (and also because we used the same name in the proposal for Salsa20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-josefsson-salsa20-tls-02 )
regards, Nikos