[Dylan16807]

I agree? That doesn't affect what I said. You shouldn't make a one-size-fits-all function that scales that small. It should have to be a deliberate choice to switch from normal mode to small mode, and anyone that hasn't looked into it deeper shouldn't even know about the small mode.

[AlotOfReading]

I suppose I don't understand your point. On one hand, you can have different algorithms for each of 32, 64, etc with potentially different pitfalls and usage requirements. On the other, you can have one algorithm that implements all of them. I wasn't trying to comment on how that should be exposed in the library (because crypto lib design is a whole 'nother topic), but I'm not opposed to it being explicit.

Same as CRCs, really. You can easily write a function that performs CRCs of any size and expose different parameterizations as CRC-8/16/32/64 etc.

[Dylan16807]

I'm responding to the idea of "use as many bits as you need" by saying it could be reasonable for small encryption but it should be kept separate from normal encryption and not made into a general statement.

Purely inside the realm of small lengths with deliberate tradeoffs I have no critique on your original statement, but I wanted to make clear that it should stay within that realm or it needs changes.