You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have integrated this SRP6a implementation in my code base in 2017, only to realize now that it never was interoperable with the RFC5054 standard. I don't recall if the note was explicit enough back then, but even today, most people will default to using the master branch. Instead of a soft "NOTE" in the readme, this should be some sort of scary warning that can't be missed.
I understand the point of maintaining backwards compatibility for older implementations that used this code before RFC5054, but shouldn't the master branch conform to RFC5054, with a pre-RFC5054 compatibility branch instead of the other way around? It's not like people fetch the code directly from the master branch every single time they build their project.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I have integrated this SRP6a implementation in my code base in 2017, only to realize now that it never was interoperable with the RFC5054 standard. I don't recall if the note was explicit enough back then, but even today, most people will default to using the master branch. Instead of a soft "NOTE" in the readme, this should be some sort of scary warning that can't be missed.
I understand the point of maintaining backwards compatibility for older implementations that used this code before RFC5054, but shouldn't the master branch conform to RFC5054, with a pre-RFC5054 compatibility branch instead of the other way around? It's not like people fetch the code directly from the master branch every single time they build their project.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: