Hi Artem,
Could you please take a look this update:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjiang/8186057/webrev.08/
By the way, I just noticed that JdkUtils.supportECKey() method and
other return strings "true" and "false" instead of boolean values.
This looks a bit unusual and unnecessary.
The return
Hi Mike, I know I said you made arguments in favor of specifying the
keys up front in init, but I'm still really uncomfortable with this.
It's been bothering me all day. Comments below:
On 11/27/2017 10:09 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 11/27/2017 1:03 AM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
One additio
Hi John,
Please see inline.
On 11/28/2017 05:35 AM, sha.ji...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Artem,
Please review the new webrev at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjiang/8186057/webrev.07/
Please see my comments below.
One question about Compatibility.caseStatus(). What's the case
when you expect a
Hi Artem,
Please review the new webrev at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjiang/8186057/webrev.07/
Please see my comments below.
One question about Compatibility.caseStatus(). What's the case
when you expect a timeout and no client output? Should it always
result to a test case failure?
I'm n
Very very new to this discussion. If what I say below does not make sense,
please ignore it.
I'm still finding it uncomfortable to provide _n_ DPSes in initialize() and let
user to call deriveKey() _n_ times later. (Or, is this still the preferred
way?) If providing all DPSes up-front helps an
On 11/27/2017 11:46 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 11/27/2017 2:16 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
See above with respect to set/getParameter. But hopefully you'll be
happy with the API after this next round. I have one other change I
will be making. I'm removing deriveObject. I'm uncomfortable rig
On 11/27/2017 2:16 PM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
See above with respect to set/getParameter. But hopefully you'll be
happy with the API after this next round. I have one other change I
will be making. I'm removing deriveObject. I'm uncomfortable right
now with the idea of the API executing an arbi
On 11/27/2017 11:16 AM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
I thought that we had ditched setParameter in favor of putting these
parameters in getInstance. IIRC we were headed toward an algorithm
naming convention of /, plus APS in the getInstance (which may
be null (and might be for most KDFs that we start w
On 11/27/2017 10:09 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 11/27/2017 1:03 AM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
One additional topic for discussion: Late in the week we talked
about the current state of the API internally and one item to
revisit is where the DerivationParameterSpec objects are passed. It
was
On 11/27/2017 1:03 AM, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
One additional topic for discussion: Late in the week we talked
about the current state of the API internally and one item to
revisit is where the DerivationParameterSpec objects are passed. It
was brought up by a couple people that it would be be
10 matches
Mail list logo
