In message <[email protected]> on Sun, 8 Apr 2018 12:24:08 +0000, "Salz, Rich" <[email protected]> said:
rsalz> > Yes, after what I all said previously, it's clear the code could rsalz> use improvements. I think at least Matthias and I assumed the code rsalz> about the minimum size was correct and that there was a minimum rsalz> requirement of 128 bit. rsalz> rsalz> My expectation was that the *maximum* would also be 128 bits. Not sure what you're saying there. If the entropy acquisition routines is over enthusiastic and delivers 277 bits of entropy, are you saying it shouldn't be allowed to? rsalz> I deliberately stayed away from all RAND stuff after the rsalz> initial PR, because I didn't want to step on anyone else's toes rsalz> and "hog" the work. I knew others (including Kurt) were very rsalz> interested in this. rsalz> Who is going to ensure that we improve the code? All things considered, I think "we" will. There seems to be enough discussion going on among interested parties, and it does sound like we want to find a common ground. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte [email protected] OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ _______________________________________________ openssl-project mailing list [email protected] https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
