I vote "for" :) Let me know what should I do if openssl will decide to move forward
Regards, Alex. On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL < [email protected]> wrote: > On 1/20/16, 16:25 , "openssl-dev on behalf of Salz, Rich" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > >> The fact that these mechanisms are half-done means to be that it’s a > >>bug in need of fixing. > > > >I doubt that anyone else on the team will find this argument compelling. > > I don’t know. “pkeyutl -engine pkcs11 -keyform engine -derive -inkey > id_03" does not work the way it’s supposed to. To me it usually means a > bug. Another supporting reason - no interface or parameters/arguments > would change, only the internal behavior would be adjusted, resulting in > actually succeeding with a crypto operation rather than returning an error. > > But regardless, I hope the team would consider the complexity (or > simplicity :) of the proposed change and the benefits from it. After all, > we’re not lawyers, and (hopefully :) we all want to make/keep this tool as > useful as possible to as many users as feasible (as far as we can :). So > since this change doesn’t require moving heaven and earth (AFAICT), > perhaps the team would consider it. > > _______________________________________________ > openssl-dev mailing list > To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev > >
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
