Hi Nia,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 5:57 PM nia wrote:
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> > We still need to protect the unique identity and reputation of
> > WireGuard (our "brand"). This ensures that when people see the
> > WireGuard name or logo, they know it is something we, the
> > WireGuard developers, have wor
Hi Jason,
> We still need to protect the unique identity and reputation of
> WireGuard (our "brand"). This ensures that when people see the
> WireGuard name or logo, they know it is something we, the
> WireGuard developers, have worked on."
Personally, I would be in favour of entirely rebranding
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 08:35:39PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> In its current form, there are implementation flaws and violations
> that I do not consider acceptable, and deploying this kind of thing is
> highly irresponsible and harmful to your users.
Can you please explain what these (
Hi Taylor/Ozaki-san/NetBSD developers,
I'm very excited that NetBSD is enthusiastic about WireGuard. Having
more deployment of WireGuard is always great to hear. And NetBSD is
really a terrific project. I've been enthusiastic about using it for
rump kernels for many years, and adding WireGuard cap
[followups to tech-net to reduce cross-posting noise]
Hi, Jason!
Sorry about not reaching out. The history is that the code has been
kicking around the NetBSD world since Ozaki-san first wrote it in
2018, without getting merged into src. It felt a shame to let it
wallow in that state indefinite
> On Aug 22, 2020, at 11:35 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>
> it needs to be done right,
Can you be specific about what is wrong?
-- thorpej
