> Does ANYONE think that case-sensitive cipher names are good idea? > > Someone who types TLSV1:RC4-MD5 will find things working, but is likely to > be surprised by how weakly-protected they are. > > /r$ > > -- > Principal Security Engineer > Akamai Technologies, Cambridge MA > IM: rs...@jabber.me<mailto:rs...@jabber.me> Twitter: RichSalz > > --- Even today with Unicode character set families, the ability to provide a global case-independent mapping becomes a massive problem. There are a variety of latin-like alphabets and greek alphabets, and even IBM EBCDIC encodings that are much unlike the US-ASCII character set. Even more problematic are the cyrillic, hebrew, aramaic, asian, and african alphabets. Do we need to accept transliteration to these various alphabetic schems?
Traditionally, case-independence has been the conversion of US-ASCII and IBM EBCDIC encodings for named strings. In documentation languages, the use of various Unicode tablular character sets are used. How much of this above work needs to be accomplished so that name case-independent and character code table independence needs to be accomplished. Or should we just define a character encoding standard for the naming conventions and stick to the definitions? Sincerely, Steven J. Hathaway ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
