On 07/09/18 10:09, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message on Fri, 7 Sep
> 2018 09:56:01 +0100, Matt Caswell said:
>
>>
>>
>> On 07/09/18 01:51, Richard Levitte wrote:
>>> I think this one should be part of the lot as well:
>>>
>>> #7144
>>> ASN.1 DER: Make INT32 / INT64 types read badly
On 07/09/18 01:51, Richard Levitte wrote:
> I think this one should be part of the lot as well:
>
> #7144
> ASN.1 DER: Make INT32 / INT64 types read badly encoded LONG zeroes
>
> For example, *all* two-prime RSA keys from pre-1.1.1 become unreadable
> in 1.1.1, because pre-1.1.1 encodes the
In message <20180907.025152.1131079938025695690.levi...@openssl.org> on Fri, 07
Sep 2018 02:51:52 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte said:
> For example, *all* two-prime RSA keys from pre-1.1.1 become unreadable
That was a bit of an over-statement... but it seems that there are
things in the wild
nssl-project] Release Criteria Update
All PRs except #7145 now reviewed and marked ready.
Tim
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Matt Caswell mailto:m...@openssl.org"m...@openssl.org> wrote:
We currently have 8 1.1.1 PRs that are open. 3 of which are in the
"ready" st
We currently have 8 1.1.1 PRs that are open. 3 of which are in the
"ready" state. There are 2 which are alternative implementations of the
same thing - so there are really on 4 issues currently being addressed:
#7145 SipHash: add separate setter for the hash size
Owner: Richard
Awaiting review
> On Sep 6, 2018, at 6:25 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
>
> I'm not keen on that. What do others think?
No objections to issuing a release. We're unlikely to have to change the
API/ABI or feature set based on further beta feedback. Any late bugs can
be fixed in 1.1.1a, and unless they trigger
We need to get this release out and available - there are a lot of people
waiting on the "production"release - and who won't go forward on a beta
(simple fact of life there).
I don't see the outstanding items as release blockers - and they will be
wrapped up in time.
Having the release date as a
On 06/09/18 17:32, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:11:41PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
>> Current status of the 1.1.1 PRs/issues:
>
> Since we did make a lot of changes, including things that
> applications can run into, would it make sense to have an other
> beta release?
I'm
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:11:41PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> Current status of the 1.1.1 PRs/issues:
Since we did make a lot of changes, including things that
applications can run into, would it make sense to have an other
beta release?
Kurt
___
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Matt Caswell wrote:
> #7113 An alternative to address the SM2 ID issues
> (an alternative to the older PR, #6757)
>
> Updates made following earlier review. Awaiting another round of reviews.
> Owner: Paul Yang
All the previous comments have been addressed. I
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:59:34PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> Today's update is that we still have 6 open PRs for 1.1.1. 5 of these
> are the same as yesterday. The 1 that was marked as "ready" yesterday
> has now been merged, and a new PR addressing issue #7014 has been opened.
>
> There are
Today's update is that we still have 6 open PRs for 1.1.1. 5 of these
are the same as yesterday. The 1 that was marked as "ready" yesterday
has now been merged, and a new PR addressing issue #7014 has been opened.
There are still 2 open issues for 1.1.1 but both of these are now being
addressed
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:11:41PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote:
> There are 2 open issues for 1.1.1. One of these is being addressed by
> PR#7073 above. The other one is:
>
> #7014 TLSv1.2 SNI hostname works in 1.1.0h, not in 1.1.1 master (as of
> 18-Aug)
>
> This one seems stuck!! No clear way
Current status of the 1.1.1 PRs/issues:
There are currently 6 open PRs for 1.1.1. However in 2 cases there are 2
alternative implementations for the same thing - so really there are
only 4 issues being addressed. One of these is in the "ready" state.
The remaining 3 are:
#7114 Process KeyUpdate
14 matches
Mail list logo
