On Jun 12, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Andy Polyakov wrote: >>>> This patch adds the BIO_CTRL_DGRAM_SET_DONT_FRAG option for >>>> BIO_ctrl() to activate the Don't Fragment bit for the current socket, >>>> if possible on the platform. >>>> >>>> This a necessary feature to realize a Path MTU Discovery with >>>> Heatbeats and to use SCTP over DTLS for RTCWeb (Real-time Browser to >>>> Browser Communication). >>> Please double-check http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=22628 along with >>> http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=22627. Once confirmed bss_dgram.c >>> will propagate down to 1.0.2. It's hardly appropriate to go lower, >>> because binaries compiled with pre-1.0.2 won't call it anyway. >> Not sure I understand this... We need this to for implementing >> SCTP over DTLS. Why can't we require a version of, let's say 1.0.1d >> at least. But it is up to you. > > When you say "require" what do you mean? That you require it from your
> target users, right? But most users run pre-packaged software and are > reluctant to compile themselves. So that effectively you're more likely > to require yours users to ask their favorite vendor? But vendors have > their own policies for maintaining their packages and don't want *any* > functional changes within same package. So that your target audience is > unlikely to see new functionality on their systems, not through 1.0.1 > package update from their vendors. Starting with 1.0.0 we favor this and > add *no* functional changes in "letter" updates. Instead we aim to > ensure that 1.0.x releases are binary compatible, so that vendors can > maintain different versions of packages for same distribution, so that > it's possible stage *in* version with extra functionality, without > having to recompile applications that don't rely on new functionality. OK, your choice. What I meant: Adding a functionality like in 2830 doesn't break binary compatibility, right? Only someone depending on such a feature, needs to make sure that a specific letter release is used when linking (dynamic or static). But if you have changed the policy you use for adding features, it is OK. We just refer people to the patch or to the upcoming 1.0.2 release. Best regards Michael > > ______________________________________________________________________ > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org > Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org > Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org > ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
