Re: aes128gcm: is the 1st example wrong?

On 13 February 2017 at 06:47, Julian Reschke <> wrote:
> FWIW, I was able to reproduce the examples with the updated code in
> <>, modulo
> the change Martin mentioned (but which I don't see in Git).

'twas on a branch.  I've merged that now.

> <>:
> it would be good if the prose mentioned that this specifies a keyid of "a1"
> in the header.

Also on said branch :)

Received on Sunday, 12 February 2017 23:33:02 UTC