>>> Agreed. With the caveat that I *really* want libp11 and engine_pkcs11 >> > to die, and be replaced by native code in openssl/crypto/pkcs11/ >> >> Would you mind explaining what you mean by “native code” that presumably >> could replace the current libp11, and who in your opinion would support >>it? > >Really, I mean "code within OpenSSL itself". In an ideal world, that >might actually *be* libp11, which is basically written as if it resides >in openssl/crypto/pkcs11/ already — except for its licence (qv).
Ah, I understand. Yes, we’re in complete agreement here. >So "die and be replaced by" would be the wrong wording for me to have >used. I want libp11 to stop being a *separate* project. :-) >In fact, libp11 wasn't seeing a huge amount of development work before >people started adding EC support to it, was it? Other than keeping it >up to date with OpenSSL releases, of course... Yep… >I don't anticipate that it would be a large maintenance burden. Michal would be the right person to comment on this, but I think I agree.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
