Re: [pkcs11] Message* functions

[Chris Zimman <chris@wmpp.com>]

I respectfully disagree here.  I don’t think this is a waste of time.  The TC is an open forum, and anyone is welcome to propose, debate, or suggest to change things.  If anyone feels strongly about something, they are certainly within their rights to ask for a discussion and potentially a vote on the matter.

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 07:05:31AM -0800, Mark Joseph wrote:
> Daniel
> 
> This discussion is a waste of time.  The TC has already determined the function names.  If you where late and could not contribute to the previous discussion that is unfortunate but we should not have to start over just because you where not part of the TC before.   I suggest we move on and stop wasting time.  
> 
> Best,
> Mark Joseph
> P6R,  Inc
> 408-205-0361
> mark@p6r.com
> 
> 
> > On Jan 19, 2018, at 1:00 AM, Daniel Minder <Daniel.Minder@utimaco.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Tim,
> >  
> > If there were such precise discussions I should be able to find some notes about it and someone should be able to explain me the reason for deviating from common interface design practices such as using common name prefix for functions that belong together logically. None of this is true so far.
> >  
> > Thanks,
> > Daniel
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > Utimaco IS GmbH
> > Germanusstr. 4, D.52080 Aachen, Germany, Tel: +49-241-1696-0, www.utimaco.com
> > Seat: Aachen – Registergericht Aachen HRB 18922
> > VAT ID No.: DE 815 496 496
> > Managementboard: Malte Pollmann (Chairman) CEO, Dr. Frank J. Nellissen CFO
> > 
> > This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at https://www.utimaco.com/en/e-mail-disclaimer/