On 24 February 2017 at 20:21, Cory Benfield wrote:
>
> Either way, I think I’d like to confirm this works by writing two more
> modules. First, I’d like to actually write most of the tls module into
> something that can live on PyPI, in no small part because backporting it
>
> On 24 Feb 2017, at 09:55, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> Heh, I guess you must have already caught everyone with a strong opinion
> about this by way of security-sig :)
So it seems. =D
> On the procedural front, the main open question is whether or not Guido wants
> to review
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:55:20 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On the procedural front, the main open question is whether or not Guido
> wants to review and approve this PEP himself, or if he'd prefer to delegate
> that task.
>
> Assuming the latter case, I think it may make
On 14 February 2017 at 00:26, Cory Benfield wrote:
> All,
>
> Python has never exposed the ability to use TLS backends other than
> OpenSSL in the standard library. As Christian and I discussed back at the
> Developer Summit at PyCon US 2016, the ssl module would more properly
All,
Python has never exposed the ability to use TLS backends other than OpenSSL in
the standard library. As Christian and I discussed back at the Developer Summit
at PyCon US 2016, the ssl module would more properly be called the openssl
module, due to exposing many OpenSSL-specific concepts