This discussion seems to have gone stale.

As far as I can read the thread, there are three lines of thought at
play (in no special order):

- the API put forth in #11996 and #11997
- the API exemplified with EVP_MAC and EVP_KDF before #11996 and #11997
- the API exemplified by functions in CamelCase

I'm uncertain if we mean to say that only new EVP features (sometimes
called sub-APIs) should be affected by whatever we decide, or if we
should make appropriate aliases for older EVP features as well (one
might argue that the CamelCase functions pave a way that avoids such
aliases).

Cheers,
Richard

-- 
Richard Levitte         levi...@openssl.org
OpenSSL Project         http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/

Reply via email to