Re: PKCS#11 engine implementation

2010-03-04 Thread Nikolay Elenkov
On 2010/03/03 23:41, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Nikolay Elenkov wrote: I've a few question about the PKCS#11 support in BIND 9.7, specifically the OpenSSL engine implementation. Is this the right place to ask? There appears to be no bind-dev mailing list. I see you

Re: PKCS#11 engine implementation

2010-03-04 Thread Nikolay Elenkov
On 2010/03/04 3:29, Evan Hunt wrote: What version of the original OpenSolaris patch is the openssl-0.9.8l-patch in the 9.7.0 tarball based on? 2009-03-11. More specificaly, pkcs11_engine-0.9.8j.patch.2009-03-11, applied to 0.9.8k as explained in

Re: PKCS#11 engine implementation

2010-03-04 Thread Cathy Almond
There is a developers list. It is called bind-workers. https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-workers Maybe the list page needs a couple of words what the list is about. It's not exactly obvious. You know - it isn't exactly obvious is it - I looked at the likely web page routes

Re: PKCS#11 engine implementation

2010-03-03 Thread Nikolay Elenkov
On 2010/03/03 14:23, Nikolay Elenkov wrote: Hi, I've a few question about the PKCS#11 support in BIND 9.7, specifically the OpenSSL engine implementation. Is this the right place to ask? There appears to be no bind-dev mailing list. No answer so far, so here goes a simple question:

Re: PKCS#11 engine implementation

2010-03-03 Thread Jeremy C. Reed
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Nikolay Elenkov wrote: I've a few question about the PKCS#11 support in BIND 9.7, specifically the OpenSSL engine implementation. Is this the right place to ask? There appears to be no bind-dev mailing list. I see you already asked your question. This list is okay.

Re: PKCS#11 engine implementation

2010-03-03 Thread Evan Hunt
What version of the original OpenSolaris patch is the openssl-0.9.8l-patch in the 9.7.0 tarball based on? 2009-03-11. More specificaly, pkcs11_engine-0.9.8j.patch.2009-03-11, applied to 0.9.8k as explained in http://blogs.sun.com/janp/entry/pkcs_11_engine_patch_for1. What has been