Re: [TLS] To API or not (Re: TLS renegotiation issue)
Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Sun, 08 November 2009 01:41 UTC
Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8A33A689A for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:41:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.394
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SiLg2Boka5p4 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C1B3A6918 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1N6wnG-00007P-3Y for tls@ietf.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:42:14 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B17667C for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:42:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18QtrNStgF2WAFMMiaCUWuWdiIaujIO/Ow=
Message-ID: <4AF621F2.80403@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:42:10 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "'tls@ietf.org'" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E4A7ECACE3C7@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local>
In-Reply-To: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E4A7ECACE3C7@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=1E36DBF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [TLS] To API or not (Re: TLS renegotiation issue)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:41:50 -0000
Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL wrote: > IETF can't write precise API because those are application-specific. s/can't/shouldn't/ ? It bugs me the way w3c goes as far as specifying that some APIs must use UTF-16 host-endian for their string representation, even for things usually accessed from scripting languages. > I think that abstract interfaces would be useful for TLS. I agree. Somebody would have noticed that they were adding a new layer to the model, and it would have forced an interface change which either would have been rejected or documented properly. - Marsh
- Re: [TLS] To API or not (Re: TLS renegotiation is… Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL
- Re: [TLS] To API or not (Re: TLS renegotiation is… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] To API or not (Re: TLS renegotiation is… Nicolas Williams