[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [pkcs11] fwd: CKM_PKCS5_PBKD2_PARAMS struct: password length
+1 …. to correct the header per Tim’s proposal below. The use of CK_ULONG_PTR in is clearly a typo and, I can attest that we already ship implementations where we treat it as a CK_ULONG instead of CK_ULONG_PTR regardless of the typo. While I understand the issue is backwards compatibility, and that other implementations follow the C header as is , I would also claim that in reality implementers have already made choices and there is significant inconsistency in the market which causes interoperability issues regardless. So, since we are here with the goal of updating the spec , my preference is that we SHOULD make it right and consistent with the wording (and rest of the spec) in 2.40 . Doron On 10/04/2013 7:36 AM, Michael StJohns wrote: I'd leave it as is. It's consistent in the text and in the header files. If it needs to be changed, then the proper way is to define a new structure and mechanism and leave this one intact.
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission may be privileged and confidential, and therefore, protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer without copying or disclosing it. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]