On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 01:40:51 GMT, Anthony Scarpino <ascarp...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Kevin Driver has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 16 additional >> commits since the last revision: >> >> - update test to include Spi updates >> - Update with latest from master >> >> Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into kdf-jep-wip >> # Please enter a commit message to explain why this merge is necessary, >> # especially if it merges an updated upstream into a topic branch. >> # >> # Lines starting with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts >> # the commit. >> - add engineGetKDFParameters to the KDFSpi >> - code review comment fix for javadoc specification >> - change course on null return values from derive methods >> - code review comments >> - threading refactor + code review comments >> - review comments >> - review comments >> - update code snippet type in KDF >> - ... and 6 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/ef8559a3...dd2ee48f > > src/java.base/share/classes/com/sun/crypto/provider/HkdfKeyDerivation.java > line 74: > >> 72: if (kdfParameters != null) { >> 73: throw new InvalidAlgorithmParameterException( >> 74: "RFC 5869 has no parameters for its KDF algorithms"); > > I think the exception should just say something like: `hmacAlgName + " does > not support parameters"`. The algorithm name isn't necessary here if it is > displayed somewhere along the exception stack. > I don't think putting an RFC number is helpful. +1, clearer to just state "xxx does not use configuration parameters" or something similar where xxx is the HKDF algorithm name. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20301#discussion_r1716234103
