lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:54:53 +0100 (BST)
To:	"Ian McDonald" <>
Cc:	"Ivo Calado" <>,
	"Gerrit Renker" <>,,
	"netdev" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] First Patch on TFRC-SP. Copy base files from TFRC

Sorry for the delay in replying.

>> One future patch will need to modify this file, but now it's really an
>> exact copy.
> Basically the rule with a patch set is that all the patches should
> make sense together.
> It may well be that it makes sense to make a copy, but if you want to
> do this then present it with the patch that then modifies it.
I agree with Ian's point. At the moment I can only see patch 5/5 modifying
this file (adding documentation); from my reading of RFC 4828/5622 it seems
not necessary to use 'tfrc_sp' variants of the functions computing X.

The situation will be better as soon as the patches are in their own subtree.
Currently there is a benefit in using separate files: the tfrc library does
not support a sender-based variant of TFRC, hence requires further work
a decision to support a sender-bsed variant of CCID-3/4 only in an
experimental subtree - this requires input and discussion.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists