| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Conflicts:
lib/ssl/doc/src/ssl.xml
lib/ssl/src/ssl.erl
lib/ssl/src/ssl_cipher_format.erl
lib/ssl/src/tls_handshake.erl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ERL-434
RFC6347 says about hello_verify_request version field as follow
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6347#page-16
The server_version field has the same syntax as in TLS. However, in
order to avoid the requirement to do version negotiation in the
initial handshake, DTLS 1.2 server implementations SHOULD use DTLS
version 1.0 regardless of the version of TLS that is expected to be
negotiated.
But current DTLS server responses DTLS1.2 instead of DTLS1.0.
|
|
Beta DTLS, not production ready. Only very basically tested, and
not everything in the SPEC is implemented and some things
are hard coded that should not be, so this implementation can not be consider
secure.
Refactor "TLS connection state" and socket handling, to facilitate
DTLS implementation.
Create dtls "listner" (multiplexor) process that spawns
DTLS connection process handlers.
Handle DTLS fragmentation.
Framework for handling retransmissions.
Replay Detection is not implemented yet.
Alerts currently always handled as in TLS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if DTLS is not finished, e.i. not runnable yet we
want to phase in the code together with refactoring of TLS code,
but without introducing warnings in the release.
|
|
Common functions will be located in ssl_handshake.erl while
specific functions will be located in tls_handshake.erl and dtls_handshake.erl
|
|
Also phase in tls module as main API instead of ssl. To
make API clearer. As TLS is the new protocol name.
Maybe keep some API functions in ssl
|
