On 071208 at 01:25, Nelson Bolyard wrote: > In your case, you have attached a patch, and (I gather) you're seeking > review of the patch (a necessary precursor to commitment). Bugzilla has > a way to mark a patch with a review request. Doing so causes that > patch to appear on some reviewers queue of patches to be reviewed. > Most patch reviewers only review patches that show up in their review > request queues. But your patch has not been marked with a review > request. I'll add some suggestions in that bug on how to proceed.
Thank you. I didn't find the option to add the review flag and ?/+/-/ wasn't very obvious, but I added "review?" with my name. It displays myself as 'bugzilla' and I also noticed it expected me to choose someone to review my code, not who requests the review...as if I would know who would like to do that and has the time. I already hate this software.. :-) > Do you have a companion bug/RFE for adding the necessary UI support to > PSM (Personal Security Manager), the Mozilla software component that > does UI for crypto-related issues? Having SRP in NSS won't do much good > unless the necessary UI is also present. Getting new UI approved > is MUCH more difficult than getting new crypto approved, IMO, and I'm > afraid that it's too late in the FF3 development schedule to start that, > if it isn't already started. There might be plenty of time for > SeaMonkey though. No patch as of now. Larry from FF3 displays the identity of the server as the main aspect, but with SRP there may be mutual authentication but no certificate information at all. I also personally dislike Larry. Now if I write a PSM patch, I'd have to integrate it into the existing security interface. A lot of fuss about sth that is IMHO inherently broken. So the plan was to create a FF extension instead. One that 'fixes' how the security status is displayed(and perceived, hopefully), and also includes some other ideas with regards to phishing attacks. Then the patch against PSM should be very small if needed at all. I hope this way it will be easier to settle on the way the security interface should work and it may also help to evaluate how some other ideas perform. > Mozilla UI discussions generally do NOT take place in this list. > Unfortunately, there isn't one single other list in which they mostly do > take place, but rather there are many other lists. I'd suggest starting > in dev-security (a.k.a the mozilla.dev.security newsgroup). Yeah, I think I'll detail my ideas over there in a about month or so, when I figured out how everything fits together and how to write ff extensions.. Regards, /steffen -- Bildet Olsenbanden! _______________________________________________ dev-tech-crypto mailing list dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
