Skip to content

Warn more explicitly about RFC5054 compatibility #13

@awakecoding

Description

@awakecoding

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.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions