Re: RFR: 8280494: (D)TLS signature schemes [v16]

2022-02-09 Thread Xue-Lei Andrew Fan
> This update is to support signature schemes customization for individual > (D)TLS connection. Please review the CSR as well: > CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8280495 > RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8280494 > Release-note: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8

Re: RFR: 8280494: (D)TLS signature schemes [v15]

2022-02-09 Thread Xue-Lei Andrew Fan
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 21:38:22 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> Xue-Lei Andrew Fan has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Spec update > > src/java.base/share/classes/javax/net/ssl/SSLParameters.java line 749: > >> 747: * @implNote

Re: RFR: 8280494: (D)TLS signature schemes [v15]

2022-02-09 Thread Sean Mullan
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 18:24:56 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote: >> This update is to support signature schemes customization for individual >> (D)TLS connection. Please review the CSR as well: >> CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8280495 >> RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8

Re: RFR: 8280494: (D)TLS signature schemes [v13]

2022-02-09 Thread Xue-Lei Andrew Fan
On Wed, 9 Feb 2022 14:33:11 GMT, Sean Mullan wrote: >> Basically, the suggestion captures the implementation behaviors correctly. >> To make it more accuracy, if we want to use it, we may need to consider more >> cases: >> 1. _explicitly set by application_, with null, empty or 1+ schemes. >>

Re: RFR: 8280494: (D)TLS signature schemes [v15]

2022-02-09 Thread Xue-Lei Andrew Fan
> This update is to support signature schemes customization for individual > (D)TLS connection. Please review the CSR as well: > CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8280495 > RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8280494 > Release-note: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8

Re: RFR: 8280494: (D)TLS signature schemes [v13]

2022-02-09 Thread Sean Mullan
On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 23:36:05 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote: >> Ok, I get it now, the API wins if both are set. But I could not discern that >> from the current text. I think it is ok to be more clear about this. I >> suggest adding something like the following: >> >> "The set of signature schem