From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Network Security Manager merge time? Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:41:05 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <874mtuc1hq.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87lhn7cfe0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87egszcd3i.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87h9xvavjm.fsf@lifelogs.com> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416433269 1175 80.91.229.3 (19 Nov 2014 21:41:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:41:09 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 19 22:41:02 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XrCzm-0000Xm-8z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:41:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60789 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrCzl-0000m2-SI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:41:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57940) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrCzd-0000lq-FO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:40:59 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrCzW-0005A1-Pe for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:40:53 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50315) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XrCzW-00059w-H1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:40:46 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XrCzU-0000QC-Br for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:40:44 +0100 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:40:44 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:40:44 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:fLZ8uvdS/thqxU9hHKpoNM+/ESs= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:177825 Archived-At: On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:34:53 -0500 Ted Zlatanov wrote: TZ> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:59:16 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Ted Zlatanov writes: >>> I'd rather deprecate it in favor of `nsm-security-level', especially if >>> you're OK with the ability to set the level per host or subnet, and per >>> service. The `gnutls-verify-error' checks are all 'medium I think. LMI> I can imagine that some people would rather leave all this up to LMI> gnutls... TZ> As far as user-level customization, I'd rather not have multiple TZ> variables. The checks will be done the same way, just based on TZ> `network-security-level' instead of specific checkboxes like now. Looking at the code, there's a lot of copy+pasta there between the GnuTLS verification in `gnutls-boot' and the message collection in `gnutls-peer-status'. Could you factor that out so there's only one sequence of checks to maintain, especially since I'd like to deprecate the GnuTLS verification in favor of NSM? Basically call `gnutls-peer-status' in `gnutls-boot' and then iterate through the messages (which can be the simpler version you use instead of the one with the hostname attached I have in `gnutls-boot'). I can do it if you prefer. Ted