Re: OTC VOTE: Keeping API compatibility with missing public key

2020-12-04 Thread SHANE LONTIS
+1 > On 4 Dec 2020, at 10:45 pm, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > Vote background > --- > > The vote on relaxing the conceptual model in regards to required public > component for EVP_PKEY has passed with the following text: > > For 3.0 EVP_PKEY keys, the OTC accepts the following

Re: OTC VOTE: Keeping API compatibility with missing public key

2020-12-04 Thread Tim Hudson
+1 Note I support also changing all key types to be able to operate without the public component (where that is possible) which goes beyond what this vote covers (as previously noted). Having a documented conceptual model that is at odds with the code isn't a good thing and in particular this

Re: OTC VOTE: Keeping API compatibility with missing public key

2020-12-04 Thread Dr Paul Dale
+1 Pauli -- Dr Paul Dale | Distinguished Architect | Cryptographic Foundations Phone +61 7 3031 7217 Oracle Australia > On 4 Dec 2020, at 10:45 pm, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > Vote background > --- > > The vote on relaxing the conceptual model in regards to required public >

OTC VOTE: Keeping API compatibility with missing public key

2020-12-04 Thread Tomas Mraz
Vote background --- The vote on relaxing the conceptual model in regards to required public component for EVP_PKEY has passed with the following text: For 3.0 EVP_PKEY keys, the OTC accepts the following resolution: * relax the conceptual model to allow private keys to exist without