Dirk Meyer <[email protected]> writes: > Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Having more feedback on what kind of features XMPP wants from TLS >> libraries will help TLS implementers (at least it will help me), and >> making the requirements explicit may help the decision on what is the >> best choice for XMPP too. > > For OpenSSL and GnuTLS it is more about features of the bindings.
Ah. > Both libs have SRP and Finished message support for > channel-bindings. But the Python bindings (that is what I care about) > only support X.509. Well, it is even worse: OpenSSL's Python bindings > are old and not updated anymore, GnuTLS does not have real bindings > (only some strange ctypes based code flying around without real > project homepage). I am aware of two GnuTLS Python bindings: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-gnutls/1.1.8 http://www.imperialviolet.org/pygnutls.html Which one are you talking about? My python fu is weak, so I cannot judge how good they are. pyGnuTLS looks rather abandoned, but python-gnutls seems alive (last release 2009-01-13). > I don't know about Ruby, C#, or any other language. GnuTLS only seems to > have suitable Guile bindings -- but seriously, who uses these? > > If you are part of the GnuTLS team, maybe you can start a campain for > good language bindings. The lack of bindings is why many people prefer > OpenSSL. Add at least good support for Python and Ruby. Many XMPP client > libs are written in scripting languages. This is useful feedback, and I wasn't that aware of this. I talked at FOSDEM about GnuTLS and did ask people to write perl bindings, since I noticed there aren't even Perl bindings available. But I will ask people to work on bindings for more languages. Thanks, /Simon
