rom: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe
Abley
Sent: 28 June 2013 21:41
To: Paul Hoffman
Cc: John C Klensin; RFC Interest; ietf@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: RFC 6234 code
--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from ou
Riccardo Bernardini wrote:
>
> This came to my mind while reading: why not embedding the archive in
> the text with some special "line header" that makes automatic
> extraction possible?
Like RCF 6716.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Forties, Cromarty: East, veering southeast, 4
--On Friday, June 28, 2013 16:41 -0400 Joe Abley
wrote:
>> If you really think you see a legal difference in doing the
>> second, fine; I propose that you are just searching for
>> problems that do not exist.
>
> Quite possibly they don't, and I'm not presuming to talk for
> John. But the vagu
Martin Rex wrote:
> Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> >
> > I'd actually tried the authors, but no reply yet (only a few days).
> > I also tried the RFC Editor thinking they might have e.g. XML
> > from which extraction might have been easier, but also no response yet.
>
> Extracting code from t
Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
>
> I'd actually tried the authors, but no reply yet (only a few days).
> I also tried the RFC Editor thinking they might have e.g. XML
> from which extraction might have been easier, but also no response yet.
Extracting code from text is pretty trivial.
Use copy
On 2013-06-28, at 15:19, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> The RFC Editor is publishing code in a text file that is formatted like an
> RFC. The proposal is for the RFC Editor to publish *the exact same code* in a
> file without the RFC wrapping.
>
> If you really think you see a legal difference in doin
On Jun 28, 2013, at 12:10 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Folks, IANAL, but please be _very_ careful about the comment Joe
> made about the potential difference between publishing a paper
> or article that contains code and exporting the code itself or
> making it generally available for export. I
--On Friday, June 28, 2013 10:11 -0400 Tony Hansen
wrote:
>> I also tried the RFC Editor thinking they might have e.g. XML
>> from which extraction might have been easier, but also no
>> response yet. And I had found several libraries, but not the
>> RFC code. ... But the broader point is that
On Jun 28, 2013, at 1:57 AM, "Eggert, Lars" wrote:
> some WGs are good at this. RFC5662 for example includes the shell commands to
> extract the sources it contains.
Earlier example: RFC 4134.
> It would certainly be nice if other WGs did this, too, but I'm not sure we
> need to make it a re
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
> On 6/28/2013 4:53 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
>> I'd actually tried the authors, but no reply yet (only a few days).
>>
>> For me, a thanks to Tony Hansen, who did the extraction for me. (That makes
>> me feel a little guilty, w
On 6/28/2013 4:53 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> I'd actually tried the authors, but no reply yet (only a few days).
>
> For me, a thanks to Tony Hansen, who did the extraction for me. (That makes
> me feel a little guilty, why should he do my work I could have done?) But the
> poin
4 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
-Original Message-
From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca]
Sent: 27 June 2013 18:22
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC 6234 code
--! WARNING ! --
This message
Hi,
On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:53, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)"
wrote:
> But the broader point is that if it's worth the IETF publishing the code as
> an RFC, it's worth making the code available straightforwardly.
some WGs are good at this. RFC5662 for example includes the shell commands to
ext
l Message-
From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsan...@isdg.net]
Sent: 27 June 2013 20:38
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC 6234 code
--! WARNING ! --
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external
On 2013-06-27, at 15:38, Hector Santos wrote:
> Ok, other than time, it should be easy to extract, clean up and cross your
> fingers that it compiles with your favorite C compiler.
Having just done it, I'm happy to report that there was little finger-crossing
involved. The fact that there's a
Ok, other than time, it should be easy to extract, clean up and cross
your fingers that it compiles with your favorite C compiler. But I
would write to the authors to get the original source. Or google:
C source crypto libraries API hashing functions
among the first hit:
http://www.crypt
Oh, I missed the first "date" line in my paste, which makes the second one a
bit mysterious. Here it is :-)
[krill:~]% date
Thu 27 Jun 2013 12:56:35 EDT
[krill:~]% mkdir 6234
[krill:~]% cd 6234
...
On 2013-06-27, at 13:22, Joe Abley wrote:
> [krill:~]% mkdir 6234
> [krill:~]% cd 6234
> [krill
On 2013-06-27, at 11:49, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)"
wrote:
> RFC 6234 contains, embedded in it, code to implement various functions,
> including SHA-2.
>
> Extracting that code from the RFC is not a clean process. In addition the
> code must have existed unembedded before being embedded.
>
Hi,
On Jun 27, 2013, at 17:49, "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)"
wrote:
> RFC 6234 contains, embedded in it, code to implement various functions,
> including SHA-2.
>
> Extracting that code from the RFC is not a clean process.
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcstrip/ can take the headers/footers ou
in England & Wales No: 1996687
-Original Message-
From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsan...@isdg.net]
Sent: 27 June 2013 17:27
To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC 6234 code
--! WARNING ! --
This message originates
What language, OS? There are plenty of rich hashing/encrypting C/C++
libraries out there. Windows has CAPI, even OPENSSL has these libraries.
On 6/27/2013 11:49 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
RFC 6234 contains, embedded in it, code to implement various functions,
including SHA-2.
Extr
21 matches
Mail list logo
