Hi everyone,
Following up on this work, I am pleased to say that the code is stable
and code complete. In discussions with this group and various
maintainers, it seems that people don't see the need for a VOTE on this
work. Therefore, unless there is an objection, I will work with the
maintainer
On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 11:44, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Dan, thanks. Please see below.
>
> On 18.05.20 13:49, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> >> Returns TRUE on success and FALSE on failure.
> > Have you considered using an exception for failures?
> >
> > First, having a cryptographic function fail is bad enough
Dan, thanks. Please see below.
On 18.05.20 13:49, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 10:55, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> there is an open question as
>> to whether it should be an RFC
> I don't think it should be.
>
> The questions and problems related to cryptography are far too
> detailed for
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 10:55, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> there is an open question as
> to whether it should be an RFC
I don't think it should be.
The questions and problems related to cryptography are far too
detailed for a useful conversation to be had for anyone who doesn't
understand them deeply.
Aannd as a reminder, this RFC is open, and there is an open question as
to whether it should be an RFC ;-)
Over the last week I did spot one additional problem in the code that I
fixed. Additional review is always welcome, and in particular I am
interested in any code that would exercise the flag
Just to follow up on the earlier thread
(https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/110127), I've done my best to
create an RFC for the CMS support additions. I would welcome any
comments or suggestions. If folk don't want it to go through the whole
RFC process, that's fine by me. Otherwise, it's th
