Re: Proposed changes to SSL comparison documentation

2013-05-15 Thread Daniel Stenberg
On Mon, 6 May 2013, Nick Zitzmann wrote: Unless anyone has any other changes, I think it's ready for publication. You might want to edit it first with any changes you wish to make, or at least update the last-updated date at the bottom. :) Thanks for your work on this (all of you who contribu

Re: Proposed changes to SSL comparison documentation

2013-05-06 Thread Nick Zitzmann
On May 5, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Daniel Stenberg wrote: > I'll incorporate this asap. I also intend to make sure the web site contents > become available in a git repo soon so that it'll be easier for people to > edit the sources intead of the final HTML files. Unless anyone has any other changes,

Re: Proposed changes to SSL comparison documentation

2013-05-06 Thread Nick Zitzmann
On May 5, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Rich Gray wrote: > One thing I'm trying to come to grips with it what level of built-in support > various operating systems provide. I'm struggling with how to distribute > binaries which would drop in on various Unix-like platforms without the need > for customer

Re: Proposed changes to SSL comparison documentation

2013-05-05 Thread Rich Gray
Nick Zitzmann wrote: On May 4, 2013, at 4:56 PM, Steve Holme wrote: Generally speaking, I like what you've done here Nick... The comparison is a lot more informative and information more useful. However I have a few comments: * Would it be better to state *nix rather than Unix in the platfor

Re: Proposed changes to SSL comparison documentation

2013-05-05 Thread Daniel Stenberg
On Sun, 5 May 2013, Nick Zitzmann wrote: Okay, I incorporated your suggestions, and Marc's suggestion, and added a glossary of terminology which might be useful for people who don't understand the differences between TLS versions or the meaning of ECC. Comments now? Very nice work Nick and o

Re: Proposed changes to SSL comparison documentation

2013-05-05 Thread Marc Hoersken
2013/5/4 Nick Zitzmann : > The documentation at is missing > sections for Windows- and Darwin-native SSL, and also doesn't mention a few > key differences between engines, like whether they're database-driven or > file-driven or both, or their support

RE: Proposed changes to SSL comparison documentation

2013-05-05 Thread Steve Holme
Hi Nick, On Sun, 5 May 2013, Nick Zitzmann wrote: > > * Would it be better to state *nix rather than Unix in the platform list? > > What about "POSIX"? That is a group that would include GNU, BSD, and Unix. Yes - that works for me ;-) > > * Rather than stating "Not present in older versions of

Re: Proposed changes to SSL comparison documentation

2013-05-04 Thread David Strauss
It would be useful to include SNI support in the comparison. cURL has supported SNI since 7.18.1, but the library has to support it, too. I know older versions of Microsoft's libraries lack it, notably on Windows XP. "[NSS] suffers a bit from being seen as only used by Mozilla's browser and mail c

RE: Proposed changes to SSL comparison documentation

2013-05-04 Thread Steve Holme
On Sat, 4 May 2013, Nick Zitzmann wrote: > The documentation at > is missing sections for Windows- and Darwin-native SSL, and also > doesn't mention a few key differences between engines, like > whether they're database-driven or file-driven or both, or