On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 20:41:13 GMT, Weijun Wang <wei...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Implement HPKE as defined in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9180/. >>  > > Weijun Wang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > toString, exportData, spec in HPKEParameters must have algorithm > identifiers specified src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/spec/HPKEParameterSpec.java line 78: > 76: * {@link #info(byte[])} method by both sides. > 77: * <li> > 78: * If HPKE modes {@code mode_auth} or {@code mode_auth_psk} are used, This could be reworded as: "To use the HPKE modes {@code mode_auth} ..." src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/spec/snippet-files/PackageSnippets.java line 35: > 33: public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { > 34: // @start region="hpke-spec-example" > 35: // Key pair generation Comment should note this is the recipient's key pair. src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/spec/snippet-files/PackageSnippets.java line 46: > 44: sender.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, kp.getPublic(), ps); > 45: > 46: // Retrieve the actual parameters used from the sender. I think it would be more clear if you didn't name the cipher objects `sender` and `recipient` because there can be confusion as to whether you mean the cipher objects or the sender/receiver entities. src/java.base/share/classes/javax/crypto/spec/snippet-files/PackageSnippets.java line 64: > 62: recipient.init(Cipher.DECRYPT_MODE, kp.getPrivate(), pr); > 63: > 64: // Secure communication between the 2 sides There is no secure communication in the code below. I would remove/change this comment. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18411#discussion_r2042597344 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18411#discussion_r2042605774 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18411#discussion_r2042611506 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18411#discussion_r2042620693
