On Sep 20, 2016 4:27 PM, "Dave Thaler" <dthaler at microsoft.com> wrote: > > I've now thought about this some more and I am now convinced that we should remove > support for SECURE=0 builds (in master). > > As Uze mentioned, the choice to disable security should be a config/run-time decision, not > a compile-time decision. There is no reason to consume build resources to build a version > that cannot even be configured to enable security. > agreed in general but I think there is still a "problem", namely that "security" conflates multiple distinct functionalities. encryption is one thing; creds are another, and ACLs yet another.
fwiw imho SECURED should be removed from the build system altogether. Non-encryption security features should just always be enabled. But for debugging, something like --DISABLE_DTLS should be supported by the build logic. this suggests also that that API should be changed. OCInit should be parameterized by persistent storage, and client code should not have to separately call an init function for persistent storage. in other words there should not be two ways to get going, one for SECURED=0 and one for SECURED=1. client app code should never need to make a secured/unsecured distinction. of course apps can still designate resources as secure or not but that is a completely separate topic. my 2 cents. gregg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20160920/b36fc12e/attachment.html>
