Matt Caswell

So @hakonhagland - it looks like the workaround for now is to downgrade to NASM 2.15.05. Thanks @amatyuko-intc for the investigation.

OTC: Removing the hold. It's up to the discretion of reviewers.

> For example because it would no longer be a CLA: trival change. Trying to see the section in our testing policy that says that's a reason to not include...

OTC: CMS code bug fix should be fixed in 3.0 and above, the default for salt length can be changed in 3.1 and above.

> If this makes sense, I can provide doc updates & unit tests; either separately or as a PR. Sounds good to me too. Please raise a PR. Remember to...

Note, as a new feature this can only go into master...not stable branches.

> It is admittedly confusing. Perhaps this is a naming thing. We have a whole bunch of SSL_want_*() APIs: ```` c # define SSL_want_nothing(s) (SSL_want(s) == SSL_NOTHING) # define SSL_want_read(s)...

> How about SSL_net_read_desired and SSL_net_write_desired? WFM > I don't think it necessarily makes sense to support these functions on ordinary TLS methods but I suppose in principle there's no...

It looks like there are two main outstanding issues with this PR: 1) Naming for SSL_want_net_read and SSL_want_net_write. It looks like we were agreeing on the new names SSL_net_read_desired and...

Fixup pushed addressing the feedback. @t8m - please take another look @hlandau - please reconfirm