[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Encryption protocols

From: James Michael DuPont
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Encryption protocols
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 01:27:56 -0800 (PST)

--- Chris Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 Mar 2003 22:00, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > I think with "fairly compatible", Chris means "GPL-incompatible in
> a
> > manner that can be worked around with a linking exception."
> Yep. Basically, but I was also (badly) trying to raise the following:
> > In any case, the GNU libs, libgcrypt and GNU TLS should be the
> > default, simply because they're part of GNU, and if there should
> > be a serious problem with either of them, we should contribute
> > to fixing the problem rather than choosing a different default.
> Which was the drift of my post.  We should at least support openSSL
> but not 
> release code that _relies_ on it. 

Maybe you can take a look at the openssl stuff i posted the other day?

> Exactly why I was suggesting that we implement the encryption
> layer(s) through 
> an abstraction layer to detatch the details of the chosen encryption
> toolkit 
> from the dotGNU 'proper' layer.  (Kind of like DBI, DBD database
> abstraction 
> in Perl).  That way multiple encryption toolkits can be supported
> beneith a 
> common interface.

that sounds good.

> This is of course ideally...... I know only too well the problems and
> headaches this approach brings....  but does tend to benifit things
> in the 
> long run.  If only we had the power of hindsight right now. Probably
> will 
> never happen.  Just thought I'd mention it anyway.

Hmm, well I say, wrap all the libs that we need, 
and then unify the interfaces.

Divide and Conquer
Unite and Rule

James Michael DuPont

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]