>> Bottom line [still] is that enc is not the place to perform XTS, >> *unless* it's treated specially. In other words question should not be >> about setting IV, but about *if* XTS should be supported by enc, and if >> so, how exactly. > > It seems to me this is why jamming modes like XTS into standard EVP as > if they were like other modes is a less than great idea.
But providing own interface for every specific mode is also hardly fun. I mean there ought to be balance. Now we have EVP that implies different semantic in different modes. In other words application might have to perform extra calls depending on mode (and in this particular case problem is that enc doesn't do those calls). What would be alternative? Distinct interface for every class of modes? Can we define what makes up such class? What do we expect from interface? Also note that either way, the fact that it needs to be treated in enc in special way doesn't change. It's not like I'm rejecting alternatives to EVP, but discussion have to be more constructive. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
