> On Apr 18, 2017, at 10:25 AM, Thedore Oidelson wrote:
>
> Glyph, I understand your and other's concerns, and while clearly I feel a
> little differently, my real concern was how the curves I was using were
> suddenly not supported at all. Which is why I think the API you and Tobias
> sugges
Glyph, I understand your and other's concerns, and while clearly I feel a
little differently, my real concern was how the curves I was using were
suddenly not supported at all. Which is why I think the API you and Tobias
suggested is a good compromise.
I have the code to do this just about ready a
> On Apr 17, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Thedore Oidelson wrote:
>
> I'm taking Glyph's suggestion and bringing this to the mailing list. :)
Thank you :). Hopefully some people more qualified than me will comment...
> I still believe it was unwise to remove the support for the extra EC curves
> in PR
Hi,
I do think letting users configure the permissible curves (and their
priority) using a public tx API, and exposing all of the curves that the
underlying openssl provides is important.
FWIW, the german BSI (a state IT security institute that provides
recommendations, and certifications) n
I'm taking Glyph's suggestion and bringing this to the mailing list. :)
I still believe it was unwise to remove the support for the extra EC curves
in PR #749 for a few reasons that I've said in a few different places so
I'll summarize them here.
* Support for more curves is better. It gives mo
