Re: gnutls_safe_renegotiation_set?

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> wrote:
> The new gnutls_safe_renegotiation_set API doesn't seem to influence
> rehandshakes -- i.e., I cannot first handshake successfully with the
> extension, call the API with flag=0, and then do a rehandshake that does
> not use the extension.  Is this intentional?

Never thought of such usage of it. I see no reason to allow such
behavior since it will only complicate code without offering new
functionality or advantage.

> More generally, why do we need this API at all?  Isn't the natural thing
> to use the priority strings to disable the extension?  Same question
> about gnutls_safe_negotiation_set_initial.

They are not really needed. We could remove them. They were left there
to allow similar behavior with other functions that can also be set
with priority strings.


regards,
Nikos