Hi Nikita, On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are free to prepare a patch, but your patch will not get merged. > > Your blatant disregard of any and all feedback you receive on your > proposals is beginning to get on my nerves. This has played out again and > again, most recently in the thread on mt_rand() seeding. Here again, you > make a suggestion, you get two responses, both telling you that your > suggestion is not acceptable, and what conclusion do you draw from this? > Why, of course, let's land it anyway! > > If people stop replying to your mails, the reason is not that they have > been convinced by your arguments. The reason is that they have realized the > pointlessness of the debate. > This is because there is no logical explanation why against to have salt. Internet RFC clearly states the benefits. Moreover, it recommends salt whenever it is possible by emphasizing improved security by salt. Or am I misunderstood the RFC? There isn't any valid reason to have "salt" parameter as the last optional parameter so far. Why it should be the last optional parameter? Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohg...@ohgaki.net
