In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 30 May 2002 08:01:55 -0500,
Steven Bade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
sbade> I'm not sure about the second question, but we found that the eracom
sbade> engine submission was much more generic. When one of my co-workers
sbade> tried to get our PKCS#11 libraries (openCryptoki) used by the Trustway
sbade> module there were many issues, as well as specific calls directly to
sbade> PKCs#11 functions rather than through the function list. If I remember
sbade> correctly the Eracom submission from last year was much more generic and
sbade> we had to do nothing except point it to our shared library... No
sbade> requirements for GKPCS11 headers, no direct function calls...
I think I have the eracom variant in my archives, so I'll take a
look...
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
