Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bpo-19180: Updated reference for RFC 1750 and RFC 3280 #148

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 9, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
9 participants
@chkumar246
Copy link
Contributor

commented Feb 18, 2017

  • RFC 1750 has been been obsoleted by RFC 4086.
  • RFC 3280 has been obsoleted by RFC 5280.
  • RFC 4366 has been obsoleted by RFC 6066.
@the-knights-who-say-ni

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 18, 2017

Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Unfortunately we couldn't find an account corresponding to your GitHub username on bugs.python.org (b.p.o) to verify you have signed the CLA. This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at your contribution. Please follow these steps to help rectify the issue:

  1. If you don't have an account on b.p.o, please create one
  2. Make sure your GitHub username is listed in "Your Details" at b.p.o
  3. If you have not already done so, please sign the PSF contributor agreement
  4. If you just signed the CLA, please wait at least one US business day and then check "Your Details" on bugs.python.org to see if your account has been marked as having signed the CLA (the delay is due to a person having to manually check your signed CLA)
  5. Reply here saying you have completed the above steps

Thanks again to your contribution and we look forward to looking at it!

@Carreau
Copy link
Contributor

left a comment

For the little effect my review can have, I approve, and comment made by OP are correct.

RFC 4366 has been obsoleted by RFC 6066.

If another reviewer is wondering, this one is already cited a couple of lines after the end the diff.

@chkumar246

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Feb 27, 2017

Thanks for the review. Any thing more to add to this patch?

@chkumar246

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Mar 11, 2017

@Carreau @serhiy-storchaka anything more i can improve to this patch?

@orsenthil

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 4, 2017

@serhiy-storchaka - shall we move forward with this? The change looks good to me. These are See Also links which informative guidance ( like introduction to SSL/TLS from Apache site in the same list). Removing the obsolete RFC and mentioning the correct ones seems to be right thing to do.

@serhiy-storchaka

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 4, 2017

RFC references should be updated only if the ssl module actually supports new RFCs and is not sticked to obsolete RFCs. I'm not a SSL expert and don't know if it is. @tiran is an expert.

There are also other references to obsolete RFCs in ssl.rst and _ssl.c. Shouldn't they be updated too?

@serhiy-storchaka serhiy-storchaka requested a review from birkenfeld Apr 4, 2017

@tiran
Copy link
Member

left a comment

Please update inline references, too.

Also please add RFC 6125 and link it from match_hostname.

@@ -2306,14 +2306,11 @@ successful call of :func:`~ssl.RAND_add`, :func:`~ssl.RAND_bytes` or
`RFC 1422: Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail: Part II: Certificate-Based Key Management <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1422>`_
Steve Kent

`RFC 1750: Randomness Recommendations for Security <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1750>`_

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@tiran

tiran Apr 4, 2017

Member

This RFC is referenced in the documentation of RAND_add. You need to update both occurrences.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@chkumar246

chkumar246 Jun 3, 2017

Author Contributor

Done.


`RFC 4366: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4366>`_
Blake-Wilson et. al.
`RFC 5280: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5280/>`_

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@tiran

tiran Apr 4, 2017

Member

5280 is correct. Please update documentation of SSLSocket.getpeercert, too.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@chkumar246

chkumar246 Jun 3, 2017

Author Contributor

Done

`RFC 3280: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and CRL Profile <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3280>`_
Housley et. al.

`RFC 4366: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4366>`_

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@tiran

tiran Apr 4, 2017

Member

RFC 6066 is the successor to 4366. Please update documentation of HAS_SNI.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@chkumar246

chkumar246 Jun 3, 2017

Author Contributor

Done

@tiran's comments overrules.

@ncoghlan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 27, 2017

@chkumar246 Thanks for the initial work on this at the PyCon Pune sprints. Do you think you may be able to find time to follow up on @tiran's feedback, or would you prefer that someone else pick up the change and finish up those final details?

@ncoghlan ncoghlan added the sprint label May 28, 2017

@ncoghlan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 28, 2017

Added the sprint label, as this PR was submitted at the PyCon Pune 2017 core development sprint.

@chkumar246

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 2, 2017

Sorry for the late reply, I will update the PR soon.

bpo-19180: Updated reference for RFC 1750 and RFC 3280
* RFC 1750 has been been obsoleted by RFC 4086.
* RFC 3280 has been obsoleted by RFC 5280.
* RFC 4366 has been obsoleted by RFC 6066.
@chkumar246

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 3, 2017

@ncoghlan @tiran Thanks for the review. I have resolved the comments, please have a look.

@tiran

tiran approved these changes Jun 9, 2017

@matrixise

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 9, 2017

@ncoghlan ncoghlan merged commit 63c2c8a into python:master Jun 9, 2017

3 checks passed

bedevere/issue-number Issue number 19180 found.
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@matrixise

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jun 9, 2017

thanks @ncoghlan

ncoghlan added a commit to ncoghlan/cpython that referenced this pull request Jun 9, 2017

[3.6] bpo-19180: Updated references for RFC 1750, RFC 3280 & RFC 4366 (
…pythonGH-148)

* RFC 1750 has been been obsoleted by RFC 4086.
* RFC 3280 has been obsoleted by RFC 5280.
* RFC 4366 has been obsoleted by RFC 6066.
(cherry picked from commit 63c2c8a)
@ncoghlan

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 9, 2017

Backport: #2023

mlouielu added a commit to mlouielu/cpython that referenced this pull request Jun 15, 2017

bpo-19180: Updated references for RFC 1750, RFC 3280 & RFC 4366 (pyth…
…onGH-148)

* RFC 1750 has been been obsoleted by RFC 4086.
* RFC 3280 has been obsoleted by RFC 5280.
* RFC 4366 has been obsoleted by RFC 6066.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.