Re: [RFC][VOTE] Improve hash_hkdf() parameter

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 7:21 AM, lists@rhsoft.net <lists@rhsoft.net> wrote: > Am 09.05.2017 um 23:36 schrieb Yasuo Ohgaki: > >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 3:55 PM, lists@rhsoft.net <mailto: >> lists@rhsoft.net> <lists@rhsoft.net >> <mailto:lists@rhsoft.net>> wrote: >> >> ..... PLEASE STOP riding that dead horse - it's even annoying for >> users following the devel-list how you argue on that opic over >> months - nonody shares your view, that's it - accept it >> >> >> Apparently not. >> You obviously do not understand what is the issue >> > > i understand the issue - you just don't accept that it was refused - > period - deal with it You obviously DO NOT understand issue here. I'm requesting "Should be in the manual" hash_hkdf() example(s) that justify current function signature. The example(s) should be common/recommended/secure. I've had enough argument that current hash_hkdf() is reasonable, but no proper example is shown yet. If you have any, I appreciate it. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net