Re: SHA1 implementation by Steve Reid
Florian Weimer <email@example.com> writes:
> * Carsten Leonhardt:
>> Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> The apparent intent, as evidenced by the copyright statement in the
>>> source code parts of RFC 6234, is that the code parts are available
>>> under that licensing option, even though they are not otherwise marked
>>> as code components under the TLP.
>> So in essence the code is ok to use now and we don't need to remove it
>> anymore? Or is "the apparent intent" not enough for that?
> I have not checked whether the code in the new RFC is the same as in
> the old RFC.
I have checked that now, the code included in RFC 3174, RFC 4634 and
RFC 6234 is not exactly the same. The version in bacula is also slightly
different from the one in RFC 3174.
So from what you wrote earlier, I understand that the IETF saw the
problem with code in RFCs and took steps to clarify the situation, which
I take as a hint from the IETF that the old code from RFC_3174
should/can be seen as unmodifiable.