Hi, Would you be ok to backport ssl.MemoryBIO and ssl.SSLObject on Python 2.7? I can do the backport.
https://docs.python.org/dev/library/ssl.html#ssl.MemoryBIO Cory Benfield told me that it's a blocking issue for him to implement his PEP 543 -- A Unified TLS API for Python 2.7: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0543/ And I expect that if a new cool TLS API happens, people will want to use it on Python 2.7-3.6, not only on Python 3.7. Security evolves more quickly that the current Python release process, and people wants to keep their application secure. >From what I understood, he wants to first implement an abstract MemoryBIO API (http://sans-io.readthedocs.io/ like API? I'm not sure about that), and then implement a socket/FD based on top of that. Maybe later, some implementations might have a fast-path using socket/FD directly. He described me his PEP and I strongly support it (sorry, I missed it when he posted it on python-dev), but we decided (Guido van Rossum, Christian Heimes, Cory Benfield and me, see the tweet below) to not put this in the stdlib right now, but spend more time on testing it on Twisted, asyncio, requests, etc. So publishing an implementation on PyPI was proposed instead. It seems like we agreed on a smooth plan (or am I wrong, Cory?). https://twitter.com/VictorStinner/status/865467388141027329 I'm quite sure that Twisted will love MemoryBIO on Python 2.7 as well, to implement TLS, especially on Windows using IOCP. Currently, external libraries (C extensions) are required. I'm not sure if the PEP 466 should be amended for that? Is a new PEP really needed? MemoryBIO/SSLObject are tiny. Nick (Coghlan): what do you think? https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0466/ Victor _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
