Rust implementation status

Jason A. Donenfeld Jason at
Wed Mar 15 18:03:33 CET 2017

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Vladimir Matveev
<dpx.infinity at> wrote:
> anything, I do agree with the goal of making Wireguard implementations
> as slim as possible (i.e. following the guideline on https://www.wiregu
> My thoughts in this paragraph were about the
> agree that it is right. I was talking about unofficial implementations
> - I don't believe it is possible to force someone not to create a
> Wireguard implementation with a different interface,

Oh, okay, I understand now. Indeed "non-official" ports become harder
to keep consistent. For that reason, I'm actively soliciting
contributions to the main project organization, so we can work
together to get something unified, so that there aren't ugly

> Yes, I do agree with this, and I saw your answer on Github already and
> I'm really glad that you are not against this approach.


> I'm very sorry if I said something which made you think so.

It's okay, and no need for apology. I was just wondering what was
happening here.

More information about the WireGuard mailing list