On 11/8/2019 12:58 PM, Sean Mullan wrote:
The fix looks good but I noticed that there is an existing test
(javax/net/ssl/TLSCommon/MFLNTest.java) that tests this feature using
the property name "jsse.enableMFLNExtension". That test should have
failed because of the misspelled property. I think
The fix looks good but I noticed that there is an existing test
(javax/net/ssl/TLSCommon/MFLNTest.java) that tests this feature using
the property name "jsse.enableMFLNExtension". That test should have
failed because of the misspelled property. I think you should look into
that to see why it di
That's great, thanks Sean.
I'll take care of backporting the other items as well.
/Christoph
From: Seán Coffey
Sent: Freitag, 8. November 2019 17:03
To: Langer, Christoph ; Sean Mullan
; Valerie Peng ; OpenJDK Dev
list
Cc: Joe Darcy ; jdk-updates-...@openjdk.java.net
Subject: Re: CSR Review
Hi,
May I get the following update reviewed?
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xuelei/8233621/webrev.00/
Trivial update, no new regression test.
The system property, "jsse.enableMFLNExtension", was introduced in JDK 9
(See JSSE Reference Guides). However, the implementation code uses
"jsse.enab
It looks like that we cannot get a consensus about the CSR. I will
withdraw this CSR, and go forward with an update that does not need to
update the CSR or doc.
Thanks,
Xuelei
On 11/7/2019 5:29 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
If there are two properties used for the same function, we need to
respect o
I will go with the what the group agrees with, but I still think the one
in the docs should be the one we use. I think that has more public
exposure than the misspelled one. Was the MFLN property added because
of user request?
I don't think we need two properties. I doubt the property is use
Hey Christoph,
I've added myself as reviewer for this CSR. Hope that's ok.
There was a bug tail with this PKCS11 upgrade (interoperability issues
due to ambiguity in the spec)
See JDK-8229243 also (and the JDK-8225695 regression)
Regards,
Sean.
On 07/11/19 22:19, Langer, Christoph wrote:
H
Hi Max,
Thanks for having a look at this.
Webrev.02:
* http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbalao/webrevs/8233404/8233404.webrev.02/
New in Webrev.02:
* java.security documentation extended to describe the relationship
with the system property
* IterationCount test extended to verify that a system
On 11/7/19 7:41 PM, Mike StJohns wrote:
You deleted DES but not DESede. Was that intentional?
Yes. Bernd had a similar question and I earlier replied:
On 11/6/19 3:05 PM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On the other hand, requiring 3DES might really not be a requirement
anymore, while at it remove
