tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: dealing with hmac(3)

On 05/10/2017 06:12, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 04:34:08 +0000
>> From: David Holland <>
>> 3. Going forward, create a new crypthash.h, and have it include all
>> the hash function headers (hmac.h, md5.h, sha1.h, rmd160.h, etc etc)
>> and document all the latter as deprecated. That is, going forward the
>> official interface for all of these will be <crypthash.h>. Add new
>> hash functions (and things related to hash functions, like hmac) only
>> to this file.
>> 4. Sometime in the suitably distant future, like after -10 is out,
>> remove all the individual hash function headers.
> Why remove the individual header files?  Why not just use them as is?
> What's the benefit of another hodgepodge <crypthash.h>?

I concur.
I special case the current situation enough as it is, lets not have
another competing standard!

> <bikeshed alert>
> Should we consider putting NetBSDisms in <netbsd/....h>?
> </bikeshed alert>

The _NETBSD_SOURCE guard enough be enough.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index