Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

t;>>>> Haifeng >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Original Message- >>>>> From: Chen, Haifeng [mailto:haifeng.c...@intel.com] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:40 PM >>>>> To: Commons Develope

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

> Apache Hadoop and related projects in Intel. We have IP plan > >>>considered > >>>>>as > >>>>> part the open source process. > >>>>> > >>>>> As to the codebase, such as the package name is com.intel prefixed, > &g

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

prefix. But we found that >>we >> >> couldnot publish org.apache. grouped artifacts to maven central >> >>repository, >> >> which needs to somewhat ownership for org.apache domain. >> >> >> >> To resolve the codebase problem, once all thing

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Gangumalla, Uma wrote: > Also one question, shall we rename the package to org.apache.* in Chimera > git project first before pushing the code to Apache Commons? Or we can > work here once moved the code? > What do you suggest? There is

RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

f JDK9 will be much later than that time I guess. Thanks, Haifeng -Original Message- From: Emmanuel Bourg [mailto:ebo...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 11:03 PM To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Cc: common-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: [crypto][c

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

und that >>>we >>> >> couldnot publish org.apache. grouped artifacts to maven central >>> >>repository, >>> >> which needs to somewhat ownership for org.apache domain. >>> >> >>> >> To resolve the codebase problem, once all

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

needs to somewhat ownership for org.apache domain. > >> > >> To resolve the codebase problem, once all things are ready from Commons, > >> we rename in a branch. And the branched code can be copied into Commons > >> github as final. > >> > >> Thanks,

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

he codebase problem, once all things are ready from Commons, >> we rename in a branch. And the branched code can be copied into Commons >> github as final. >> >> Thanks, >> Haifeng >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Chen, Haifeng [mailt

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Le 24/02/2016 03:41, Chen, Haifeng a écrit : > Hope this information helps. Thanks Bourg for these insightful questions. It does, thank you for the insights. Even if Chimera doesn't implement a JCE provider due to its impractical nature, do you think it would be possible to reuse the standard

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

y 24, 2016 12:40 PM > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > Cc: common-...@hadoop.apache.org > Subject: RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps > > >> The same should be there with Chimera/Apache Crypto. > Yes, current implementation will fallback to JCE Cipher if native

RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

common-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps >> The same should be there with Chimera/Apache Crypto. Yes, current implementation will fallback to JCE Cipher if native is not available. [Uma] we would fix up IP issues if any sooner. If you see all the code file license header is

RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

s List <dev@commons.apache.org> Cc: common-...@hadoop.apache.org Subject: Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps Thanks all for the valuable feedbacks and discussions. Here are my replies for some of the questions.. [Mark wrote] It depends. I care less about the quality of the code than I do about th

RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

rg for these insightful questions. Thanks, Haifeng -Original Message- From: Emmanuel Bourg [mailto:emmanuel.bo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Emmanuel Bourg Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 6:53 PM To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Cc: common-...@hadoop.apache.org Subjec

RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

][chimera] Next steps On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Colin P. McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > Many CPUs come with built-in support for certain cryptographic and/or > hash/checksum-related primitives. For example, modern x86 CPUs have > CRC32C implemented in hardware. Curre

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > Hi all, > > I got a quick look at the Chimera code. If I understand well it consists > in: > - a native interface to the OpenSSL AES & secure random functions > - an abstraction layer to use the JCE or OpenSSL AES

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

t;How about creating a new sandbox component, let folks start work and see >how the community develops? > >Mark > > >> >>> Thanks! :-) >>> Benedikt >>> >>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/74j4el6bpfpt4evs >>> >>> 2016-02-23 3

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Hi all, I got a quick look at the Chimera code. If I understand well it consists in: - a native interface to the OpenSSL AES & secure random functions - an abstraction layer to use the JCE or OpenSSL AES implementation - an abstraction layer to use the JCE or OpenSSL secure random -

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > I still have concerns about the IP, since this seems to be an Intel > codebase. I do not have the necessary experience to say what would be the > right way here. My gut feeling tells me, that we should go through the

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

/markmail.org/message/74j4el6bpfpt4evs > >> > >> 2016-02-23 3:03 GMT+01:00 Xu, Cheng A <cheng.a...@intel.com>: > >> > >>> At this point, it has just Java interfaces only. > >>> > >>> -Original Message- > >>&g

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Colin P. McCabe wrote: > Many CPUs come with built-in support for certain cryptographic and/or > hash/checksum-related primitives. For example, modern x86 CPUs have > CRC32C implemented in hardware. Currently, this must be accessed via >

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

inal Message- >>> From: Colin P. McCabe [mailto:cmcc...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 1:29 AM >>> To: Hadoop Common >>> Cc: Commons Developers List >>> Subject: Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps >>> >>>

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

gt;: > >> At this point, it has just Java interfaces only. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Colin P. McCabe [mailto:cmcc...@apache.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 1:29 AM >> To: Hadoop Common >> Cc: Commons Developers List >> S

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

g.a...@intel.com>: > At this point, it has just Java interfaces only. > > -Original Message- > From: Colin P. McCabe [mailto:cmcc...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 1:29 AM > To: Hadoop Common > Cc: Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [crypto][chimera]

RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

At this point, it has just Java interfaces only. -Original Message- From: Colin P. McCabe [mailto:cmcc...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 1:29 AM To: Hadoop Common Cc: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps I would highly recommend shading

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

On 22 February 2016 at 23:43, James Carman wrote: > Still not a fan. My vote stands I'm inclined to agree with James here. > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:37 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > >> We already have commons-daemon that has C bits. Have you

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Still not a fan. My vote stands On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:37 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > We already have commons-daemon that has C bits. > > Gary > On Feb 22, 2016 3:27 PM, "James Carman" > wrote: > > > Not a big fan of introducing JNI-based

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

We already have commons-daemon that has C bits. Gary On Feb 22, 2016 3:27 PM, "James Carman" wrote: > Not a big fan of introducing JNI-based library to Commons. I'm -0 > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 6:15 AM Benedikt Ritter > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > >

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Not a big fan of introducing JNI-based library to Commons. I'm -0 On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 6:15 AM Benedikt Ritter wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to discuss the next steps for moving the Chimera component to > Apache Commons. So far, none of the other PMC members has expressed his

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Checksum via JNI should be done in the commons-codec project. Gary On Feb 22, 2016 3:14 PM, "Colin P. McCabe" wrote: > Hi Jochen, > > Many CPUs come with built-in support for certain cryptographic and/or > hash/checksum-related primitives. For example, modern x86 CPUs have

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Hi Jochen, Many CPUs come with built-in support for certain cryptographic and/or hash/checksum-related primitives. For example, modern x86 CPUs have CRC32C implemented in hardware. Currently, this must be accessed via inline assembly expressed in JNI. It is worth it... at least in the case of

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Gangumalla, Uma wrote: > > >All files should follow the Commons Maven naming scheme to make it easy to > >reach from Maven, Ivy and so on. > >This will be commons-crypto-1.0.jar for example. > Sure. Thanks Gary. We will follow the naming

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

>All files should follow the Commons Maven naming scheme to make it easy to >reach from Maven, Ivy and so on. >This will be commons-crypto-1.0.jar for example. Sure. Thanks Gary. We will follow the naming convention here from Commons. Regards, Uma On 2/22/16, 1:20 PM, "Gary Gregory"

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

All files should follow the Commons Maven naming scheme to make it easy to reach from Maven, Ivy and so on. This will be commons-crypto-1.0.jar for example. Gary On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Gangumalla, Uma wrote: > >I would highly recommend shading this library

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

>I would highly recommend shading this library when it is used in Hadoop and/or Spark, to prevent version skew problems between Hadoop and Spark like we have had in the past. [uma]Ha. This avoids multiple jars versions issues. Agreed IMO. >I think at a minimum, we should include the version

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Colin P. McCabe wrote: > What is the strategy for handling JNI components? Wrong question, IMO. Should better be: What are the reasons for using JNI components? Couldn't they be replaced? If so, that would very much enhance the long term

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

I would highly recommend shading this library when it is used in Hadoop and/or Spark, to prevent version skew problems between Hadoop and Spark like we have had in the past. What is the strategy for handling JNI components? I think at a minimum, we should include the version number in the native

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

widely this is required. Thanks, Haifeng -Original Message- From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:36 AM To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Subject: Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps Would Commons Crypto focus only on AES? If so, Co

RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Hi Gary, We use JNI to get to Openssl. Ferd -Original Message- From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 2:57 PM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps Curious: How to you get to OpenSSL, JNI? JNA? Gary On Sun

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

On Feb 21, 2016 11:59 PM, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote: > > Hi again, > > 2016-02-20 12:15 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Ritter : > > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to discuss the next steps for moving the Chimera component to > > Apache Commons. So far, none of the other PMC

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Hi again, 2016-02-20 12:15 GMT+01:00 Benedikt Ritter : > Hi, > > I'd like to discuss the next steps for moving the Chimera component to > Apache Commons. So far, none of the other PMC members has expressed his or > her thoughts about this. If nobody brings up objections about

RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

dev@commons.apache.org> Subject: RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps Thanks Gary. >> Would Commons Crypto focus only on AES? If so, Commons Crypto AES or Commons >> AES would be a better name. Currently, this module supports only AES modes. To help folks with information for making

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

al Message- > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:36 AM > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps > > Would Commons Crypto focus only on AES? If so, Comm

RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

is required. Thanks, Haifeng -Original Message- From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 11:36 AM To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Subject: Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps Would Commons Crypto focus only on AES? If so,

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

> -Original Message- > From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.ganguma...@intel.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:07 AM > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps > > Hi Benedikt, > > Thank you for the

RE: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

, Haifeng -Original Message- From: Gangumalla, Uma [mailto:uma.ganguma...@intel.com] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 3:07 AM To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> Subject: Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps Hi Benedikt, Thank you for the Next steps discussion. I thought

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Hi Benedikt, Thank you for the Next steps discussion. I thought of pinging you on this :-) Here I would like to introduce Haifeng, who lead the efforts in Chimera github project. I think Apache Commons Crypto looks good and self descriptive IMO. I am +1 Me and Haifeng had some

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Who are the committers comming along for this component? Do we have enough of them? I like Apache Commons Crypto. Gary On Feb 20, 2016 3:15 AM, "Benedikt Ritter" wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to discuss the next steps for moving the Chimera component to > Apache Commons. So

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Le 20/02/2016 12:15, Benedikt Ritter a écrit : > Anything missing? Define the scope of the project? Do we go after Bouncy Castle and aim for an equivalent feature set? Emmanuel Bourg - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [crypto][chimera] Next steps

Hi Benedikt, I think it would be better for the projects health if it uses github issues only. Cheers, Ole On 02/20/2016 05:15 AM, Benedikt Ritter wrote: Hi, I'd like to discuss the next steps for moving the Chimera component to Apache Commons. So far, none of the other PMC members has

[crypto][chimera] Next steps

Hi, I'd like to discuss the next steps for moving the Chimera component to Apache Commons. So far, none of the other PMC members has expressed his or her thoughts about this. If nobody brings up objections about moving the component to Apache Commons, I'm assuming lazy consensus about this. So