- Original Message -
> From: "Gordon Sim"
> To: us...@qpid.apache.org
> Cc: proton@qpid.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 2:30:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposed SASL changes (API and functional)
>
> On 02/24/2015 08:48 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> &
On 2 March 2015 at 19:30, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 08:48 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
>>
>> In a short while when people have had enough time to absorb the proposal
>> and comment I will post a code review of the actual code changes. As
>> there are substantial API changes I'd like to get t
On 02/24/2015 08:48 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
In a short while when people have had enough time to absorb the proposal
and comment I will post a code review of the actual code changes. As
there are substantial API changes I'd like to get this in for 0.9
because we were intending to stabilise the
On 27 February 2015 at 11:56, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> On 26 February 2015 at 17:52, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 12:28 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I'm going to post my comments here and on the wiki, as I dont think
>>> many (except maybe you) will actually see them
On 26 February 2015 at 17:52, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 12:28 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> ...
>> I'm going to post my comments here and on the wiki, as I dont think
>> many (except maybe you) will actually see them on the wiki ;)
>
> Thank you for the excellent feedback. I
This is from Andrew's wiki comment. Sorry to paste it back to the list, but
I'm having some difficulty commenting there:
>
>1. Setters with no getters
>Philosophically I don't agree that you need to make all properties
>read/write. I see no particular reason to make these properties re
On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 13:45 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 15:48 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> > ...
> > If you are at all interested please go and look at the proposal and
> > comment on it there.
>
> Thank you very much to Alan and Jakub for commenting on my proposal.
>
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 12:28 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> ...
> I'm going to post my comments here and on the wiki, as I dont think
> many (except maybe you) will actually see them on the wiki ;)
Thank you for the excellent feedback. I'm going to answer on the wiki -
as it'll save me from cutting
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Andrew Stitcher
wrote:
> If it is ok with them I will copy the comments over there:
> Alan, Jakub?
>
Sorry, I missed the wiki part. Feel free to copy my comment there if you
want.
On 25 February 2015 at 18:40, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 10:27 +0100, Jakub Scholz wrote:
>> ...
>> But I find this part a bit dangerous:
>> "Classically in protocols where SASL was not optional the way to avoid
>> double authentication was to use the EXTERNAL SASL mechanism. W
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 15:48 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> ...
> If you are at all interested please go and look at the proposal and
> comment on it there.
Thank you very much to Alan and Jakub for commenting on my proposal.
The reason I asked people to comment over on the wiki is that it is ver
On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 10:27 +0100, Jakub Scholz wrote:
> ...
> But I find this part a bit dangerous:
> "Classically in protocols where SASL was not optional the way to avoid
> double authentication was to use the EXTERNAL SASL mechanism. With AMQP,
> SASL is optional, so if SSL is used for client a
On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 10:46 -0500, Alan Conway wrote:
> ...
> One ignorant question: Qpid has a min/max "Security Strength Factor" for
> encryption rather than a binary enable/disable. Is that relevant here?
(Hardly an ignorant question!) You make a very good point, and this
design may indeed be a
On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 15:48 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> As many of you know I've been working on implementing a SASL AMQP
> protocol layer that does more than PLAIN and ANONYMOUS for proton-c.
>
> I'm currently in at a point where the work is reasonably functional
> (with some gaps)
>
> I've
Hi Andrew,
I'm definitely not a Proton expert, so please excuse me if I missed
something.
But I find this part a bit dangerous:
"Classically in protocols where SASL was not optional the way to avoid
double authentication was to use the EXTERNAL SASL mechanism. With AMQP,
SASL is optional, so if S
As many of you know I've been working on implementing a SASL AMQP
protocol layer that does more than PLAIN and ANONYMOUS for proton-c.
I'm currently in at a point where the work is reasonably functional
(with some gaps)
I've put together a fairly comprehensive account of this work on the
Apache w
16 matches
Mail list logo
