Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98168 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40973 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2017 05:38:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 4 Feb 2017 05:38:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=yohgaki@ohgaki.net; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ohgaki.net designates 180.42.98.130 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: yohgaki@ohgaki.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 180.42.98.130 ns1.es-i.jp Received: from [180.42.98.130] ([180.42.98.130:49070] helo=es-i.jp) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 30/2F-38491-AB865985 for ; Sat, 04 Feb 2017 00:38:03 -0500 Received: (qmail 100023 invoked by uid 89); 4 Feb 2017 05:37:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-qk0-f178.google.com) (yohgaki@ohgaki.net@209.85.220.178) by 0 with ESMTPA; 4 Feb 2017 05:37:58 -0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id 11so11078956qkl.3 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 21:37:58 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m26CTMm3Efs4J1RaZzkWLMSS15tkbHCDe6HJ/EDSX1S4QJaGDsbIIplNheUU5qK57YrrOH3353vikeBA== X-Received: by 10.55.67.135 with SMTP id q129mr596154qka.98.1486186672541; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 21:37:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.19.232 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 21:37:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 14:37:12 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Nikita Popov Cc: Andrey Andreev , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148a27ab01a110547adcc4a Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [Discussion] HKDF From: yohgaki@ohgaki.net (Yasuo Ohgaki) --001a1148a27ab01a110547adcc4a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Nikita, On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Nikita Popov wrote: > You are free to prepare a patch, but your patch will not get merged. > > Your blatant disregard of any and all feedback you receive on your > proposals is beginning to get on my nerves. This has played out again and > again, most recently in the thread on mt_rand() seeding. Here again, you > make a suggestion, you get two responses, both telling you that your > suggestion is not acceptable, and what conclusion do you draw from this? > Why, of course, let's land it anyway! > > If people stop replying to your mails, the reason is not that they have > been convinced by your arguments. The reason is that they have realized the > pointlessness of the debate. > This is because there is no logical explanation why against to have salt. Internet RFC clearly states the benefits. Moreover, it recommends salt whenever it is possible by emphasizing improved security by salt. Or am I misunderstood the RFC? There isn't any valid reason to have "salt" parameter as the last optional parameter so far. Why it should be the last optional parameter? Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net --001a1148a27ab01a110547adcc4a--