> With that then, I'm really fine with the changes given that they pass the NIST > tests. So here's the current list of issues. First, minor ones: 1) Add const to DRBG interface, as per Stephan's request. 2) Revised version of that final patch that, you know, actually works. 3) Re-run tests at the very end just to make sure. And the major ones: 4) Is non-deterministic DT desired? 5) If yes, how to request it? On point 4, here are the primary arguments against: * It makes the generator non-deterministic, which is a significant interface change and may break some applications. * This is a crufty old generator, used primarily for compatibility, and it's best not to upset its quiet retirement. And the primary arguments for: * It's an honest good-faith implementation of the spec requirements. Using a counter is, IMHO, a strained interpretation. * The implementation isn't particularly difficult. After considering various options, my current (not very firm) thought is that the best way to provide a non-deterministic option would be via a separate algorithm name. But externally-visible names are a high-level design issue and I could definitely use some guidance there. Opinions? -- 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
