Dirkjan Ochtman

As a maintainer, I'm unfortunately unable to do the work on this on a volunteer basis. Happy to talk if someone wants to fund the work, though -- or review...

> And I think we have other option to fix the warning, by making these types non-exhaustive. How do you think? I would think both of them are reasonable. Given...

This seems reasonable to me, thanks! (Sorry for the delay in reviewing.) > I wonder if there's value in more explicit boxing of `Status`, or if `Status` should internally box...

I think this and #1748 need a more holistic design discussion of what we're trying to achieve here and how to balance the trade-offs. As is, I don't think the...

> Can you elaborate what points in the existing implementations are clear than this changes? The previous implementation had a higher-level interface (adding certificates to the root store). This implementation...

Excited to get this out! Previously the breaking changes were sorted before the features, probably better to keep it that way? Also would be nice to sort features from roughly...

We merged #1757 instead of #1727. Probably good to just get this out and go from there?

I pinged @LucioFranco out of band, but he had some time off. I only became a maintainer recently and want to make sure we're good for a release (and the...

What's the motivating use case here? I feel like this adds quite a bit of API surface/complexity for stuff that's ultimately of little use when this API is mostly only...

From #1918: > Ideally Rustls would extract the SPKI from the EE certificate and then ask the crypto provider to do a pairwise consistency check as part of the construction...