On Tue 2016-02-02 14:08:18 -0500, Rich Salz via RT wrote:
> any chance you can refresh your 1.0.2 patch? I'm interested in being able to
> accept the common names but not changing the output for compatibility..
I am too :)
it looks like it was already merged, though, as
> do you think there are pieces that aren't yet merged? have you tried using
> the common names with 1.0.2 and they don't work?
Nope, I was just reading through all the tickets to do some basic triage.
I will close this one. Thanks !
___
0ec6898c67aeddc3c414f3cc1af2275d81329c20
--
Rich Salz, OpenSSL dev team; rs...@openssl.org
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
> do you think there are pieces that aren't yet merged? have you tried using
> the common names with 1.0.2 and they don't work?
Nope, I was just reading through all the tickets to do some basic triage.
I will close this one. Thanks !
___
DKG,
any chance you can refresh your 1.0.2 patch? I'm interested in being able to
accept the common names but not changing the output for compatibility..
--
Rich Salz, OpenSSL dev team; rs...@openssl.org
___
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe:
On Mon 2014-05-12 15:18:35 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via RT wrote:
I'm happy that the PFS key exchange normalization changesets have been
merged into master.
I've submitted https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/106 for the 1.0.2
stable branch to add similar aliasing for the library input
I think there's interest for 1.0.1 and beyond.
But I thought we already had a similar alias mechanism?
On 09/02/2014 03:34 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
I think there's interest for 1.0.1 and beyond.
But I thought we already had a similar alias mechanism?
With the version of openssl 1.0.1i that i have in front of me, openssl
ciphers EDH succeeds, but openssl ciphers DHE fails. So i don't
think the
On 05/12/2014 03:18 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via RT wrote:
I'm happy that the PFS key exchange normalization changesets haveb been
merged into master.
I've submitted https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/106 for the 1.0.2
stable branch to add similar aliasing for the library input strings.
I'm happy that the PFS key exchange normalization changesets haveb been
merged into master.
I've submitted https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/106 for the 1.0.2
stable branch to add similar aliasing for the library input strings. This
provides forward compatibility with any documentation
Hi Stephen--
On Thu 2014-01-02 16:36:39 -0500, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
On Mon Dec 30 22:47:32 2013, d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
I don't mean to be impatient -- if it's just a matter of playing catchup
over the close of the winter holiday, i can wait :)
Yes that's pretty much it. I'll
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via RT wrote:
Hi Stephen--
On Thu 2014-01-02 16:36:39 -0500, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
On Mon Dec 30 22:47:32 2013, d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
I don't mean to be impatient -- if it's just a matter of playing catchup
over the close of the
On 01/19/2014 11:40 AM, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via RT wrote:
This is a ping to see if there is anything holding up the patchsets for
normalizing PFS key exchange labels on the master branch. If there's
anything that seems wrong with the series, or
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
If you think i'm misunderstanding the OpenSSL release process, i'd be
very happy to get constructive feedback or pointers to documentation
that would help me understand it better.
A brief description of the versioning scheme is at:
On 01/19/2014 01:34 PM, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
A brief description of the versioning scheme is at:
http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#MISC8
thanks, this is useful. However, the changes i'm proposing don't seem
to fall neatly into the categories of new feature or API change or
ABI
On 1 January 2014 21:39, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
On 01/01/2014 12:48 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Pull requests on Github are quite useful - that way they also get
tracked (so long as we remember to close them when applied, that is!).
OK, i've rebased the series against the
On 20 December 2013 18:51, Stephen Henson via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
On Fri Dec 20 19:04:32 2013, d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
I can do whatever you think is most useful, but i need a bit more
guidance to be sure i'm giving you what will be most useful for you.
I've pulled the update
On 01/02/2014 03:32 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
On 1 January 2014 21:39, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
On 01/01/2014 12:48 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Pull requests on Github are quite useful - that way they also get
tracked (so long as we remember to close them when applied, that
On 01/02/2014 03:32 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
On 1 January 2014 21:39, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
On 01/01/2014 12:48 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Pull requests on Github are quite useful - that way they also get
tracked (so long as we remember to close them when applied, that
On 1 January 2014 21:39, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
On 01/01/2014 12:48 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Pull requests on Github are quite useful - that way they also get
tracked (so long as we remember to close them when applied, that is!).
OK, i've rebased the series against the
On Mon Dec 30 22:47:32 2013, d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
I don't mean to be impatient -- if it's just a matter of playing catchup
over the close of the winter holiday, i can wait :)
Yes that's pretty much it. I'll be looking reviewing the patches in the next
few days.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen
On 01/01/2014 12:48 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Pull requests on Github are quite useful - that way they also get
tracked (so long as we remember to close them when applied, that is!).
OK, i've rebased the series against the current master, and submitted a
github-specific pull request:
On 01/01/2014 12:48 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
Pull requests on Github are quite useful - that way they also get
tracked (so long as we remember to close them when applied, that is!).
OK, i've rebased the series against the current master, and submitted a
github-specific pull request:
Hi Stephen--
On Fri 2013-12-20 13:51:06 -0500, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
I've pulled the update now, thanks.
Any update on this change? I don't see the patches as having been
included in the master branch of https://github.com/openssl/openssl yet.
Is there any other information, review, or
Hi Stephen--
On Fri 2013-12-20 13:51:06 -0500, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
I've pulled the update now, thanks.
Any update on this change? I don't see the patches as having been
included in the master branch of https://github.com/openssl/openssl yet.
Is there any other information, review, or
The relevant RFCs and other implementations refer to Diffie-Hellman
ephemeral key exchange as DHE (and its elliptic curve variant as
ECDHE). OpenSSL uses this terminology in some places, but it also
uses EDH and EECDH in others. This confusion makes selecting
these key exchange mechanisms harder
On Fri Dec 20 18:37:18 2013, d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
I posted a series of 10 changesets to openssl-dev which standardizes
OpenSSL's input, API, and output on the standard names (DHE and ECDHE)
while retaining backward compatibility for string input and API for
the
older EDH and EECDH
On 12/20/2013 12:52 PM, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
On Fri Dec 20 18:37:18 2013, d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
I posted a series of 10 changesets to openssl-dev which standardizes
OpenSSL's input, API, and output on the standard names (DHE and ECDHE)
while retaining backward compatibility
On Fri Dec 20 19:04:32 2013, d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
I can do whatever you think is most useful, but i need a bit more
guidance to be sure i'm giving you what will be most useful for you.
I've pulled the update now, thanks.
Well I have to admit to being far from a git expert. For me
On 20 December 2013 18:51, Stephen Henson via RT r...@openssl.org wrote:
Well I have to admit to being far from a git expert. For me it's best if it's
easy to get the patches with commit messages and authorship somewhere I can
review them. If I manually have to apply multiple patches and add
On 12/20/2013 01:51 PM, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
I've pulled the update now, thanks.
great!
Well I have to admit to being far from a git expert. For me it's best if it's
easy to get the patches with commit messages and authorship somewhere I can
review them. If I manually have to apply
On 12/20/2013 01:51 PM, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
I've pulled the update now, thanks.
great!
Well I have to admit to being far from a git expert. For me it's best if it's
easy to get the patches with commit messages and authorship somewhere I can
review them. If I manually have to apply
On 12/20/2013 03:30 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
I had this problem with my ocb patch recently. For future reference, I
solved it by creating a temporary branch and using git merge --squash.
So if your commits are on my-branch, and you want to create a patch
against master:
fwiw, i think squashing
btw, since you only raise concerns about the string value returned for
the ciphersuites, It sounds like you're OK with the change to the
packet
tracing output -- i didn't think that the packet tracing would be
contentious, but just want to make sure that change is on your radar
too. Should
34 matches
Mail list logo
