Re: Code review request, 8028518, Increase the priorities of GCM cipher suites

2014-01-03 Thread Xuelei Fan
On 1/4/2014 11:01 AM, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: Hello, Am 04.01.2014, 03:19 Uhr, schrieb Xuelei Fan : Per RFC 6460, there are two profiles, "Suite B Combination 1" and "Suite B Combination 2". SunJSSE default cipher suite preference does not compliant to the profiles at present. That's why it is

Re: Code review request, 8028518, Increase the priorities of GCM cipher suites

2014-01-03 Thread Bernd Eckenfels
Hello, Am 04.01.2014, 03:19 Uhr, schrieb Xuelei Fan : Per RFC 6460, there are two profiles, "Suite B Combination 1" and "Suite B Combination 2". SunJSSE default cipher suite preference does not compliant to the profiles at present. That's why it is said, "The preference order of the GCM cip

Re: Code review request, 8028518, Increase the priorities of GCM cipher suites

2014-01-03 Thread Xuelei Fan
On 1/4/2014 10:47 AM, Bradford Wetmore wrote: On 1/3/2014 6:19 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote: On 1/4/2014 6:41 AM, Bradford Wetmore wrote: Looks ok to me, with the exception as you pointed out that this doesn't follow section 4 of RFC 6460. Sorry, I did not get it. Would you mind point out the line

Re: Code review request, 8028518, Increase the priorities of GCM cipher suites

2014-01-03 Thread Bradford Wetmore
On 1/3/2014 6:19 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote: On 1/4/2014 6:41 AM, Bradford Wetmore wrote: Looks ok to me, with the exception as you pointed out that this doesn't follow section 4 of RFC 6460. Sorry, I did not get it. Would you mind point out the line number of the concern? This section in RFC 64

Re: Code review request, 8028518, Increase the priorities of GCM cipher suites

2014-01-03 Thread Xuelei Fan
On 1/4/2014 6:41 AM, Bradford Wetmore wrote: Looks ok to me, with the exception as you pointed out that this doesn't follow section 4 of RFC 6460. Sorry, I did not get it. Would you mind point out the line number of the concern? Why was this done, and how did you originally determine the or

Re: Code review request, 8028518, Increase the priorities of GCM cipher suites

2014-01-03 Thread Bradford Wetmore
Looks ok to me, with the exception as you pointed out that this doesn't follow section 4 of RFC 6460. Why was this done, and how did you originally determine the original ciphersuite ordering for GCMs? Brad On 12/29/2013 7:56 PM, Xuelei Fan wrote: Hi, Please review this small update. webr

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 8030212: Several api.java.util.stream tests got "NaN" value instead of "Infinity" or "-Infinity"

2014-01-03 Thread joe . darcy
Changeset: 68de5492a06d Author:darcy Date: 2014-01-03 11:38 -0800 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/68de5492a06d 8030212: Several api.java.util.stream tests got "NaN" value instead of "Infinity" or "-Infinity" Reviewed-by: mduigou, psandoz ! src/share/classes/java/ut

hg: jdk8/tl/jdk: 2 new changesets

2014-01-03 Thread sean . coffey
Changeset: 46c727d6ecc2 Author:aefimov Date: 2013-12-30 16:46 +0400 URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/46c727d6ecc2 8025051: Update resource files for TimeZone display names Reviewed-by: okutsu, mfang ! src/share/classes/sun/util/resources/de/TimeZoneNames_de.java ! sr

Re: Code Review request: 8028431: NullPointerException in DerValue.equals(DerValue)

2014-01-03 Thread Sean Mullan
Hi Artem, The updated fix looks good. --Sean On 12/24/2013 09:19 AM, Artem Smotrakov wrote: Hi Sean, Thanks for your feedback. I have updated the webrev with your suggestions. The test used a real certificate issued by a CA. I created bad self-signed certificate. Please take a look: http:/