"Henroid, Andrew D" wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Laurie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 6:03 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Rijndael patch
>
> > But that aside, if you can get a major win for some
> > particular platform
> > but only at the expense of other platforms, then the correct answer,
> > imo, is two versions.
>
> OK, I'm sorry, the platform question was really just a diversion.
> What I'm talking about (32-bit implementations of Rijndael ECB,
> CBC, OFB, and CFB with byte-oriented support for unaligned data)
> is really a win for all platforms supported by OpenSSL.
>
> My question is, if I do the work to implement the above and do
> so correctly, will it be accepted by the development team?
> I admire this group's critical eye, but it would be nice
> to hear some response to compromise.
If it really is a win for all platforms, I don't see why not.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
