Right, there is no 3D.
Regards,
Paul Yang
> On Feb 27, 2020, at 6:54 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 11:28 +0100, Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
>> Thank you for the clarification, Mark.
>>
>> So this means we have some artistic freedom in choosing
This reminds me that it seems the lost of the original logo caused the new logo
on the new website. (No high resolution source image)
Regards,
Paul Yang
> On Feb 27, 2020, at 5:52 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-02-27 at 10:31 +0100, Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
>>
>
file I mentioned previously is actually one reissued
version of the 'correct-but-lost’ version. It was created by ‘hand-imitating’
the low-resolution image files found on Google…(that was in around 2018 IIRC
and I asked a BaishanCloud UED guy to help on the reissue task ;-).
Regards,
Paul Yang
>
The logo could be changed to the 'correct-font' version -as the one printed on
the stickers I brought to Nuremberg
I have an '.ai’ image file at hand an I think someone needs to figure how to
extract the image then include it in the markdown file...
Regards,
Paul Yang
> On Feb 27, 2020, a
It seems we have the same thoughts...
Regards,
Paul Yang
> On Dec 12, 2019, at 5:36 PM, Dr Paul Dale wrote:
>
> I agree that there is a possible flaw in the workflow. What’s saved us so
> far is that new contributors don’t generally include the "CLA: trivial" line
>
Would it be better if 'CLA: trivial’ is in the commit message but no CLA on
file, then a new label like ’warn: no CLA but trivial’ is added? This can
inform the committer who will merge the PR for the CLA condition of the commits.
Regards,
Paul Yang
> On Dec 12, 2019, at 5:29 PM, Dmi
he contributor, one can assert that he
>> might
>> be relatively new to our project, but he is certainly experienced in Open
>> Source
>> development. So I wouldn't worry too much about his feelings
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
> --
> On May 22, 2019, at 10:16, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>>> I'd be opposed to this last option without IANA/IETF being on board. By
>>> doing so
>> we are effectively no longer compliant with IETF TLS since we're using
>> certain
>> codepoints and version numbers to mean things that IETF/IANA
> On May 21, 2019, at 22:13, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>
>> I'd be opposed to this last option without IANA/IETF being on board. By
>> doing so
>we are effectively no longer compliant with IETF TLS since we're using
> certain
>codepoints and version numbers to mean things that IETF/IANA
r hand, if so, then why keep the existing IETF
>> numbers?
>
>
> That was my understanding.
>
> But perhaps Paul Yang can confirm?
The Chinese modified TLS protocol is not intended to interoperate with any
other TLS protocols. The cipher suites defined in this protoco
this
presentation in a few days, but since they are all in Chinese, I don’t know if
it’s helpful to share them to this list when they are ready.
Regards,
Paul Yang
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
openssl-project mailing list
openssl
11 matches
Mail list logo
