We're talking APIs (*), that includes the types.  So yes, that's a
safe assumption.

Cheers,
Richard

(*) if people stopped using "API" when they mean "function", that
    would save the world from a pile of confusion.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 18:45:49 +0200,
Short, Todd wrote:
> 
> 
> They also correspond directly to EVP_MAC and EVP_KDF types. Would the types 
> change as well?
> --
> -Todd Short
> // tsh...@akamai.com
> // “One if by land, two if by sea, three if by the Internet."
> 
>     On Jul 23, 2020, at 11:56 AM, Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org> wrote:
> 
>     On 23/07/2020 16:52, Richard Levitte wrote:
>    
>         On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 12:18:10 +0200,
>         Dr Paul Dale wrote:
>        
>             There has been a suggestion to rename EVP_RAND to OSSL_RAND.  
> This seems reasonable.
>              Would it
>             also make sense to rename the other new APIs similarly.
>             More specifically, EVP_MAC and EVP_KDF to OSSL_MAC and OSSL_KDF 
> respectively?
> 
>         This is a good question...
>        
>         Historically speaking, even though EVP_MAC and EVP_KDF are indeed new
>         APIs, they have a previous history of EVP APIs, through EVP_PKEY.  The
>         impact of relocating them outside of the EVP "family" may be small,
>         but still, history gives me pause.
>        
>         RAND doesn't carry the same sort of history, which makes it much
>         easier for me to think "just do it and get it over with"...
> 
>     I have the same pause - so  I'm thinking just RAND for now.
>    
>     Matt
> 
> 
> No public key for CFC553A2BA1A0ED1 created at 2020-07-23T18:45:49+0200 using 
> RSA
-- 
Richard Levitte         levi...@openssl.org
OpenSSL Project         http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/

Reply via email to