Open masihyeganeh opened 1 year ago
For context this is regarding the changes in #79.
A PR sounds good. I think there will be some bikeshedding about naming, but otherwise we can hash out the details there.
It's up. Please let me know if you like this implementation or I need to try another approach. Also, the naming is terrible, I know. I'm not good at naming things 😄
Hello. I was using your library in my code for a couple of years. I just updated it, and saw that
M1
calculation has changed. I see this comment where it is calculated:It makes sense that you decided to go with what most of the users prefer, but it is breaking functionality of my code. I'm suggesting to add those back beside current ones, so there will be a
proof()
function and maybe aproof_std()
that uses standard implementation ofM1
calculation, and also there will be averify_server_std()
besideverify_server()
that calculatesM2
using this newM1
.Or just add a
process_reply_std()
that returns aSrpClientVerifier
with the otherM1
andM2
.I can also send a PR if you need me to. Thanks in advance