Thanks for the extra editing. I've updated it to delivered.
--Max
> On Dec 22, 2018, at 3:51 AM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
> On 12/21/18 9:50 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>> I think it is ok to use secp384r1 in the release note even though it is the
>>> default for -keysize 384.
>> OK, I'll use it. And
On 12/21/18 9:50 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
I think it is ok to use secp384r1 in the release note even though it is the
default for -keysize 384.
OK, I'll use it. And I've just added another sentence that we recommend using
-groupname.
Looks good now.
--Sean
> On Dec 21, 2018, at 9:58 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
> On 11/26/18 8:32 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Ping
>
> I made a few tweaks to the title and wording.
>
>>> On Nov 15, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:53 AM, Adam Petcher wrote:
This
On 11/26/18 8:32 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
Ping
I made a few tweaks to the title and wording.
On Nov 15, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:53 AM, Adam Petcher wrote:
This looks good to me, though I made a couple of trivial editorial changes.
It's fine as is, bu
Ping
> On Nov 15, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:53 AM, Adam Petcher wrote:
>>
>> This looks good to me, though I made a couple of trivial editorial changes.
>> It's fine as is, but you may want to consider using secp384r1 instead of
>> brainpool256r1 i
> On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:53 AM, Adam Petcher wrote:
>
> This looks good to me, though I made a couple of trivial editorial changes.
> It's fine as is, but you may want to consider using secp384r1 instead of
> brainpool256r1 in your example. I worry that people will experiment with the
> new
For 12, I think we should also document the group names in the std. alg
names document so we have somewhere to point to for what names can be
specified, otherwise users will be guessing.
So I targeted this to 12: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210755
--Sean
On 11/11/18 8:08 PM, Wei
This looks good to me, though I made a couple of trivial editorial
changes. It's fine as is, but you may want to consider using secp384r1
instead of brainpool256r1 in your example. I worry that people will
experiment with the new feature using your example, and then we'll get
bug tickets becaus
Thanks. Please also take a look at the release note at
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8213821.
--Max
> On Nov 13, 2018, at 11:02 PM, Adam Petcher wrote:
>
> This change looks good to me. Thanks.
>
This change looks good to me. Thanks.
On 11/11/2018 8:08 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
Webrev updated at
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8213400/webrev.01/
Please review again.
I've removed the change to CurveDB and NamedCurve. The test now simply looks at
key.getParams().toString(). This i
Webrev updated at
https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8213400/webrev.01/
Please review again.
I've removed the change to CurveDB and NamedCurve. The test now simply looks at
key.getParams().toString(). This is implementation dependent but it works
within OpenJDK.
No change on other files.
On 11/8/2018 10:30 PM, Weijun Wang wrote:
On Nov 9, 2018, at 12:28 AM, Adam Petcher wrote:
On 11/8/2018 8:10 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
- CurveDB.java:
-add("sect163r2 [NIST B-163]", "1.3.132.0.15", BD,
+add("sect163r2 [NIST B-163]", "1.3.132.0.15", B,
All other NIST B-*** curv
> On Nov 9, 2018, at 12:28 AM, Adam Petcher wrote:
>
> On 11/8/2018 8:10 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>
>> - CurveDB.java:
>>
>> -add("sect163r2 [NIST B-163]", "1.3.132.0.15", BD,
>> +add("sect163r2 [NIST B-163]", "1.3.132.0.15", B,
>>
>> All other NIST B-*** curves do not have BD
On 11/8/2018 8:10 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
- CurveDB.java:
-add("sect163r2 [NIST B-163]", "1.3.132.0.15", BD,
+add("sect163r2 [NIST B-163]", "1.3.132.0.15", B,
All other NIST B-*** curves do not have BD. This should have been a typo.
I think this will change the default 163-bit
14 matches
Mail list logo
