I think the change is justified.
—
Regards,
Uri
> On Jan 16, 2018, at 14:31, Sands, Daniel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 14:50 +, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev wrote:
>> OpenSSL defines it as a SET OF and the spec says it’s a SEQUENCE
>> OF. Ouch! Will that cause interop problems if we cha
On 16/01/18 19:44, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Matt Caswell wrote:
> >> a) when the existing FD is connect(2) any future traffic to the bound
> >> port will get rejected with no port. So the application really has to
> >> open a new socket first. The application can do this two
Matt Caswell wrote:
>> a) when the existing FD is connect(2) any future traffic to the bound
>> port will get rejected with no port. So the application really has to
>> open a new socket first. The application can do this two ways: it can
>> open a new socket on which to receive
On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 14:50 +, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev wrote:
> OpenSSL defines it as a SET OF and the spec says it’s a SEQUENCE
> OF. Ouch! Will that cause interop problems if we change it? (I
> don’t remember the DER encoding rules)
>
>
>
Well, a SEQUENCE uses tag 16 while a SET use
On 16/01/18 15:32, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> a) when the existing FD is connect(2) any future traffic to the bound port
>will get rejected with no port. So the application really has to open a
>new socket first.
>The application can do this two ways: it can open a new socket on
please see https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5024
mattcaswell asks on github:
mattcaswell> I am unclear about the underlying premise of this PR:
mcr> This patch refactors the DTLSv1_listen() to create an
mcr> alternative API that is called DTLSv1_accept().
mcr> DTLSv1_ac
OpenSSL defines it as a SET OF and the spec says it’s a SEQUENCE OF. Ouch!
Will that cause interop problems if we change it? (I don’t remember the DER
encoding rules)
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
