> Hello Alen, it seems to me, you have not read the openssl thread completely.
> The openssl interpretation is not rfc compliant.
I know.  In the message you responded to (and you quoted), I said this.  I explained why it's not RFC compliant.  I explained why RFC compliance isn't always necessary.
a) not read the message you're replying to?
b) read it, and not understand it?
I'll also note that you showed the same issues on the OpenSSL forum: they explained things, you didn't understand the explanations, and you argued with them.  At which point they ignored you.
> a lot, but you do not concede any criticisms or mistakes yourself.
Clearly.  I've explained repeatedly, and you still don't understand.  That's a problem I can't fix.
> nobody dares to make any suggestions. That's a pity.
You're now lying about what's going on.
I am more than happy to take suggestions for improvement.  The last 20 years of the project make that abundantly clear.  Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar.
So I'm *not* criticizing anyone for suggesting improvements.
Instead, I'm criticizing people who choose to not have an honest discussion.  People who ask questions, and then tell the experts they're wrong.  People who don't read the documentation.  People who don't read the messages on this list.  People who accuse me of being rude for pointing out this anti-social behaviour.
Speaking of which, you *were* warned.