On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Darin Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Darin Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> One more data point: we'll also need to support SSL over SOCKS one >>> day, and that means that the ClientSocket passed to SSLClientSocket >>> will not be a TCPClientSocket. it will be a SOCKSClientSocket. the >>> SOCKSClientSocket will be layered on top of another ClientSocket, >>> which will be the TCPClientSocket. this extra layering would only >>> happen of course when a SOCKS proxy is enabled. >>> >>> This should clarify why we need to parameterize SSLClientSocket in >>> terms of ClientSocket. >> >> Ah, the joys of protocol stacks. >> (I did a stackable protocol suite once in C++. It even supported >> nested SSL, i.e. pushing the SSL module twice or three times >> yielded a doubly or triply nested ssl connection. Not very useful, but fun.) >> >> Are there any other layers we might need to support? >> (And does authentication count? Probably...) >> - Dan > > I've been trying to keep things as simple as possible for now. I > don't foresee needing any other layers. > > I haven't finished considering the best solution for SOCKS > authentication. Perhaps credentials will just have to be set on the > SOCKSClientSocket at construction time.
Also, to be clear, this current design would not support layering SSL on top of SSL. At least there is no support for communicating SSL errors, certificates, or other meta data from the inner layer. -Darin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to chromium-dev@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
