AesGcm listed as 'package-provided' for .NET Framework, but no package seems to exist (AesGcm class System.Security.Cryptography)

[adamwalling]

Type of issue

Other (describe below)

Description

In the applies to section, this lists:

.NET Framework | 4.6.2 (package-provided), 4.7 (package-provided)

However, this package does not seem to exist.

Page URL

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.security.cryptography.aesgcm?view=net-9.0

Content source URL

https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-api-docs/blob/main/xml/System.Security.Cryptography/AesGcm.xml

Document Version Independent Id

23b19e15-77e3-a439-3a74-343bcd79ac8f

Platform Id

7d415ddb-d3b8-23bc-a71c-2e423090e8e3

Article author

@dotnet-bot

[dotnet-policy-service]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-system-security, @vcsjones

[vcsjones]

The docs sites doesn't appear to clearly indicate what version of the package has the API. AesGcm for .NET Framework requires version 10 of the package (which is currently in preview but will GA along with .NET 10).

[vcsjones]

Oh, and the name of the package. It's in Microsoft.Bcl.Cryptography.

[lextm]

.NET 10 bits with Go-live support is a little different from previews that come with no support,

https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/platform/support/policy/dotnet-core

The package name issue seems to be what the documentation team might review.

[bartonjs]

As @vcsjones said, AesGcm is being made available to .NET Framework via the 10.0+ versions of Microsoft.Bcl.Cryptography.

Looking at the backing XML I see that it knows that Microsoft.Bcl.Cryptography is involved, but it doesn't seem to have any knowledge that a) it's a Nuget package (vs inbox assembly), or b) what TFMs the package is involved in.

@gewarren I assume that this is a problem in general, not just for this type? But it does seem like an enhancement that would be good to have (in the fullness of time).

[gewarren]

If you select the .NET Fx 4.6.2 or 4.7 (package-provided) moniker, then it does show which package it comes from:

[bartonjs]

Oh. Neat. TIL 😄

Seems like everything from this issue is already addressed, so I'm going to go ahead and hit close.