Daniel McCarney
Daniel McCarney
Having not reviewed #2088 yet I think I'd appreciate some elaboration in the accompanying text to help this change set stand alone. At the moment the commit message only says...
>> @djc thanks for taking the time to review this! > > I may need a few days to go through your comments.... @brodycj Checking in on this PR: will...
Closing this for now pending a reproducer.
> Whenever possible I used the SubjectPublicKeyInfoDer type. However, sometimes the best option seems casting to a CertificateDer type. For example in AlwaysResolvesClientRawPublicKeys::new(). I'm curious what other reviewers think of...
> I might prefer a parallel function if that means we can avoid sticking not-certificate DER in a CertificateDer which IMO is also a pretty bad anti-pattern. I was thinking...
I think we have consensus on the open questions now (?) - is it accurate to say we're waiting on another round of updates to finish some of the TODO's...
> there was some discussion over adding a niche example, maybe this is the best of both worlds. There is an example implementation for using raw keys, and we don't...
> cpu self-requested a review now I will catch up with the progress in this branch ~tomorrow/friday. Thank you!
Now might be a good point to update the PR description as well if you're up for it.
> Do you mind if I open GitHub issues and provide test cases for the aforementioned two issues? A separate issue sounds great. It will be easier to discuss there.