On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 11:43:13AM -0500, George Spelvin wrote: > > Wait, I'm confused. You mention in this note that this is an RFC patch, but not > > anywhere else in the series. Are you proposing this for inclusion or not? > > Er, in the 0/25, I mentioned that I put the least certain stuff last, > and in particular I wasn't sure if the the last three patches were wanted > or not: > > >> Pending issues: > >> * Is non-deterministic mode (last three patches) wanted? > > I certainly wouldn't be unhappy if they went in, but with the comment > clarification just before, I wouldn't be unhappy if they didn't, either. > > They're "If we wanted to do this, this is how it could be done. Is this > something we want to do?" > > Sorry if my motivations are confusing. I did indeed start with wanting Not your motivations, just the posting mechanics. If you just want to discuss a patch, and aren't yet proposing it for inclusion, you should put RFC in the prefix of every patch header. > to add the seeding because I misunderstood the comments: I thought > this was claiming to be X9.31 *and* I haven't seen the later versions > of the standaed (which you have) that back off on the requirements for > the DT[] vector. > > Since you've patiently explained both of those to me, I'm more interested > in the other, more generic code cleanups. > > You also sent me two detailed explanations of the consequences of making > the generator non-determinsitic in a way that gave me a general impression > of disliking of the idea. So I've been weaning myself off the idea. > Not particularly opposed to the idea, I just know that several use cases rely on deterministic behavior for those entities that share the secret information, so I need to be sure that the deterministic behavior remains and is the default. > I put those patches at the end so they can easily be dropped from the series. > > Or, as I also mentioned, simply postponed until there's been more discussion. > Since that's an actual semantic change, collecting a few other opinions > would be valuable. I'll look at this series in detail shortly. Neil > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
