Re: SHA-1 Functions

From: Kelsey Bjarnason (nitpick@xxnospamyy.telus.net)
Date: 03/30/03 

From: Kelsey Bjarnason <nitpick@xxnospamyy.telus.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:45:39 GMT

In article <Rorga.508$Un7.125574202@twister2.starband.net>,
rogersc@mindspring.com says...
> "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote
> > > I have to disagree. I think that "byte" is less ambiguous than
> > > "octet".
> > In fact, there has been considerable confusion about how big a
> > byte is. I haven't seen any confusion about how big an octet is.
> > Do you think an octet could consist of other than 8 members?
>
> No, octet means 8, and it is always 8 of something. It could be
> 8 singers, 8 bits, or 8 of something else.

Fine; I propose a new term, "octobit". Happy now? :)