From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.129.112.82 with SMTP id l79mr50189216ywc.5.1470068336352; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 09:18:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.14.146 with SMTP id 18mr133273otj.17.1470068336314; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 09:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!j37no6061540qta.0!news-out.google.com!d68ni13791ith.0!nntp.google.com!f6no6492164ith.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 09:18:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.0.16.20; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.0.16.20 References: <3ac0fbcd-1f1c-40b8-b030-de03954f894f@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3e053880-a0b9-4b58-9344-cc08a92ab9da@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: ANN: Ada/SPARK ASN.1 implementation version 0.0.01 From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 16:18:56 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Received-Bytes: 2734 X-Received-Body-CRC: 1165554398 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:31239 Date: 2016-08-01T09:18:56-07:00 List-Id: On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 2:51:56 AM UTC-6, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > I am interested in the TLS interface outline. Specifically, in how easy > it would be to integrate into a non-blocking socket-I/O driven architecture. There's no outline for the TLS interface, yet. (Even though I did start a TLS project right after Heartbleed, I got stumped on a few points in the RFC [one of which was the ASN.1 OID in certificates] and pretty much abandoned it.) > That means the TLS layer should write no more data than the output > buffer length, while keeping its internal state to continue when the > buffer becomes available, and the layer is called again. > > Same when reading data from the input buffer, data get available in > chunks of arbitrary size. If the layer expects more data, it must return > to the caller, again, keeping internal state. That's a good idea -- a task-type would probably fit the bill nicely, keeping its own state for every instance. > This certainly would have impact on the implementation. Very much so, but at this point I think outlining the interface would be a bit premature -- at the very least we need the interface for the security certificates, and for that we need an OID type. > P.S. Simple Components presently use GNUTLS for HTTPS, SMTP, MQTT. It > would be great to have a native Ada TLS instead. *nod* -- I've thought this for literally years, perhaps enough of the community feels the same way as us to actually help implementing it. (And it'll certainly be a good thing if we can make it as SPARK-verifiable as possible.)