Re: [hash2] Formal Review Begins

From: Richard Hodges (hodges.r_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-12-08 12:05:31

*My review:*

- What is your evaluation of the design?

Excellent. The trade-offs in API design have been well explained. There is
nothing in the design that will get in the way of any use case of mine.

- What is your evaluation of the implementation?

My assumption is that it will be carefully thought out and close to
perfectly implemented. The author has form.

- What is your evaluation of the documentation?

Comprehensive and well laid out with plenty of examples.
One reading of the documentation left me convinced that I am ready to
incorporate the library into new and existing code, and know how to.

- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library? Do
you already use it in industry?

Very useful. When I write software it is generally facing the internet and
is generally interfacing with servers that require HMAC.
The library fulfils my three main requirements:
- prevention of DOS hash attacks
- computation of HMAC
- A trustworthy and *easy to use* SHA-256 implementation.

out of the box

- Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did
you have any problems?

No

- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
reading? In-depth study?

An afternoon of reading the documentation and evaluating the library's
relevance to me.

- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

Yes

My vote: ACCEPT

My comment: If the ISO committee rejected a library as well designed and as
useful as this, this is merely a continuation of the stream of evidence of
its incompetence.

R

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 at 14:47, Matt Borland via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The review of Hash2 by Peter Dimov and Christian Mazakas begins today
> Saturday, December 7th through Sunday December 15th, 2024.
>
> Code: https://github.com/pdimov/hash2
> Docs: https://pdimov.github.io/hash2/
>
> Please provide feedback on the following general topics:
>
> - What is your evaluation of the design?
> - What is your evaluation of the implementation?
> - What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness
> of the library? Do you already use it in industry?
> - Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did
> you have any problems?
> - How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
> A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
> - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
>
> Ensure to explicitly include with your review: ACCEPT, REJECT, or
> CONDITIONAL ACCEPT (with acceptance conditions).
>
> There's already been a flurry of conversation so I thank you all for that.
> If you have any questions during this process feel free to reach out to me.
> Additionally, if you would like to submit your review privately, which I
> will anonymize for the review report, you may send it directly to me at:
> matt_at_mattborland.com.
>
> Matt Borland
> Review Manager and C++Alliance Staff Engineer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>