Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Remove coerceSize from MLKEM #126

Closed
rod-chapman opened this issue Aug 28, 2024 · 6 comments
Closed

Remove coerceSize from MLKEM #126

rod-chapman opened this issue Aug 28, 2024 · 6 comments
Labels
CNSA 2.0 good first issue Good for newcomers improvement Addresses fixes or changes to existing specs

Comments

@rod-chapman
Copy link
Contributor

Following resolution of Issue #1489 and the release of Cryptol 3.2.0, the use of coerceSize in ML-KEM/specification.cry is no longer needed and can be removed.
@rod-chapman rod-chapman mentioned this issue Aug 28, 2024
Closed
@mccleeary-galois mccleeary-galois added enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers CNSA 2.0 labels Aug 29, 2024
@mccleeary-galois
Copy link
Contributor

This is probably a duplicate of #101, but we should ensure that both PRs open are indeed covering all of the uses of coerce-size

@rod-chapman
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have this done on a branch - Shall I commit and open a PR, or wait for PR #101 to resolve itself?

@rod-chapman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actually.. I already opened PR #127 didn't I...

@mccleeary-galois
Copy link
Contributor

Actually.. I already opened PR #127 didn't I...

No worries, I was more implying we should just ensure that all of the changes in #127 are captured in #107 or vice versa.

@rod-chapman
Copy link
Contributor Author

OK. I guess you could merge my commits, then merge those over to whatever branch is being used for #107. Please go ahead.

@marsella marsella added improvement Addresses fixes or changes to existing specs and removed enhancement New feature or request labels Aug 29, 2024
@marsella
Copy link
Contributor

This was closed by #107.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
CNSA 2.0 good first issue Good for newcomers improvement Addresses fixes or changes to existing specs
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@marsella @rod-chapman @mccleeary-galois