Re: Naming conventions

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:36:30 +0200, Matt Caswell wrote: > On 18/06/2020 13:03, Richard Levitte wrote: > > As for not doing something piecemeal, I actually disagree, I see > > benefit in more than just one person getting their hands dirty (plus > > changing everything in one go may be overwhelming,

Re: Naming conventions

We have a convention that we mostly follow. Adding new stuff with variations in the convention offers no benefit without also adjusting the rest of the API. Inconsistencies really do not assist any developer. Where APIs have been added that don't follow the conventions they should be changed. It

Re: Naming conventions

On 18/06/2020 13:03, Richard Levitte wrote: > > Okie, if we're going to start this discussion with taking a stand, I > guess I'll declare that while I initially had the exact same concern, > I now see this change in a positive light. This comment from #11997 > got me to change my mind: > >

Re: Naming conventions

On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 12:36:52 +0200, Matt Caswell wrote: > > EVP_MAC_CTX_new -> EVP_MAC_new_ctx > EVP_MAC_CTX_free -> EVP_MAC_free_ctx > EVP_MAC_CTX_dup -> EVP_MAC_dup_ctx > EVP_MAC_CTX_mac -> EVP_MAC_get_ctx_mac > EVP_MAC_CTX_get_params -> EVP_MAC_get_ctx_params > EVP_MAC_CTX_set_params -> EVP_MAC

Naming conventions

PRs #11996 and #11997 made some changes to the EVP_MAC and EVP_KDF API naming conventions. Specifically (in the MAC case) renaming: EVP_MAC_CTX_new -> EVP_MAC_new_ctx EVP_MAC_CTX_free -> EVP_MAC_free_ctx EVP_MAC_CTX_dup -> EVP_MAC_dup_ctx EVP_MAC_CTX_mac -> EVP_MAC_get_ctx_mac EVP_MAC_CTX_get_para

Re: Reducing the security bits for MD5 and SHA1 in TLS

I will start the OMC vote using the text as previously proposed. Matt On 18/06/2020 03:20, Tim Hudson wrote: > Given that this change impacts interoperability in a major way it should > be a policy vote of the OMC IMHO. > > Tim. > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, 5:57 am Kurt Roeckx,