Hi
On 14.09.2016, at 14:21, Brent Cook wrote:
>
> On 14.09.2016, at 13:37, Brent Cook wrote:
>
> >
> > Once the expectations of the callbacks are finalized, this needs a good
> > explanation in the manual.
>
> [...]
> Generally, what are the expectations of a callback, what should it retur
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Tobias Pape wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 14.09.2016, at 13:37, Brent Cook wrote:
>
> >
> > Once the expectations of the callbacks are finalized, this needs a good
> explanation in the manual.
>
>
> Ok, how would I do that best?
> I admit to have amended the man page by s
Hi
On 14.09.2016, at 13:37, Brent Cook wrote:
>
> Once the expectations of the callbacks are finalized, this needs a good
> explanation in the manual.
Ok, how would I do that best?
I admit to have amended the man page by sheer
copy-and-paste-of-very-small-bits™,
so what would you suggest
Thanks!
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:48 AM, wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On 07.09.2016, at 18:08, tob...@netshed.de wrote:
> [..]
> >> On 05.09.2016, at 15:50, bust...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hey, the typedef came in handy :) Ok bcook@
> >>>
> >>> On Sep 5, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Bob Beck wrote:
> >>>
Hi again,
On 07.09.2016, at 18:08, tob...@netshed.de wrote:
[..]
>> On 05.09.2016, at 15:50, bust...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hey, the typedef came in handy :) Ok bcook@
>>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Bob Beck wrote:
>>>
I am in agreement in principle, but please coordinate with bcoo
On 07.09.2016, at 10:45, Tobias Pape wrote:
> Hi there
>
> On 05.09.2016, at 15:50, bust...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hey, the typedef came in handy :) Ok bcook@
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Bob Beck wrote:
>>
>>> I am in agreement in principle, but please coordinate with bcook@ and/or
>
Hi there
On 05.09.2016, at 15:50, bust...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey, the typedef came in handy :) Ok bcook@
>
> On Sep 5, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Bob Beck wrote:
>
>> I am in agreement in principle, but please coordinate with bcook@ and/or
>> jsing@ who were possibly doing
>> some related adjustments
Hey, the typedef came in handy :) Ok bcook@
> On Sep 5, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Bob Beck wrote:
>
> I am in agreement in principle, but please coordinate with bcook@ and/or
> jsing@ who were possibly doing
> some related adjustments.
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Ted Unangst wrote:
>
Hi all
thank you for including the feature.
I'm testing with my usecase and will report
back if strange things happen.
Thanks again and best regards
-Tobias
On 04.09.2016, at 12:28, Bob Beck wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 05:26:24AM -0500, Brent Cook wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016
I am in agreement in principle, but please coordinate with bcook@ and/or
jsing@ who were possibly doing
some related adjustments.
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Bob Beck wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed, I was also a bit unclear on payload at first (though it grew on
> > > me ov
Bob Beck wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, I was also a bit unclear on payload at first (though it grew on
> > me over time, so I didn't change it). Here's an update with the
> > parameter renamed and better documented.
> >
> > ok?
>
> Yeah. I'm good with this
>
> IMO get it in so we can tweak it in tree.
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 05:26:24AM -0500, Brent Cook wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 05:57:54AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Brent Cook wrote:
> > > @@ -246,14 +252,18 @@ An already existing socket can be upgrad
> > > .Fn tls_connect_socket .
> > > Alternatively, a secure connection can be est
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 05:57:54AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Brent Cook wrote:
> > @@ -246,14 +252,18 @@ An already existing socket can be upgrad
> > .Fn tls_connect_socket .
> > Alternatively, a secure connection can be established over a pair of
> > existing
> > file descriptors by calling
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 05:57:54AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Brent Cook wrote:
> > @@ -246,14 +252,18 @@ An already existing socket can be upgrad
> > .Fn tls_connect_socket .
> > Alternatively, a secure connection can be established over a pair of
> > existing
> > file descriptors by calling
Brent Cook wrote:
> @@ -246,14 +252,18 @@ An already existing socket can be upgrad
> .Fn tls_connect_socket .
> Alternatively, a secure connection can be established over a pair of existing
> file descriptors by calling
> -.Fn tls_connect_fds .
> +.Fn tls_connect_fds . Using
> +.Fn tls_connect_c
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 01:32:43PM +0200, Tobias Pape wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm Tobias and fond of using libtls.
> I have a certain use case, where I want to do TLS/SSL but
> can only work with buffers/callbacks and not sockets or FDs.
> In p(l)ain openssl, this is doable, but not nice. Libtls
> doe
Excellent. Im currently travelling but I think you will be hearing from
Joel
Aside from any minor changes i will say i basically like your diff, we may
need to wait for after OpenBSD 6.0 to put it in (few weeks) as we are close
to release and api changes now can hurt ports
but thank you very muc
Hi all,
I'm Tobias and fond of using libtls.
I have a certain use case, where I want to do TLS/SSL but
can only work with buffers/callbacks and not sockets or FDs.
In p(l)ain openssl, this is doable, but not nice. Libtls
does not yet have such a facility.
I did a patch (or Pull-Request in GitHub
18 matches
Mail list logo
