On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Antoine Pitrou <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment:
>
>> Great, I'm thinking more-or-less the API proposed in PEP 272- the
>> exception I'm thinking of is that 'strings' should be substituted for
>> 'bytes'- for AES and DES. It gets trickier when talking about public
>> key crypto, though. Perhaps something along the lines of
>> RSA.new(public_key=None, private_key=None,...), with the resulting
>> object supporting encrypt/decrypt/sign/verify operations?
>
> I don't have any opinion right now. I think a concrete proposal should
> be initiated and we can iterate from that.
> (that's assuming other people agree on the principle, of course)

I assume that by "a concrete proposal" you're talking about code? Or
API docs? Also, what more needs to be done to ensure that other people
agree on the principle?

>> If we're likely to have openssl taken out from under us it could save
>> us a lot of hassle to plan for that up front.
>
> It doesn't seem very likely in the middle term. In particular, the ssl
> module itself is quite tied to OpenSSL's socket wrapping semantics
> (including error codes and non-blocking behaviour), so OpenSSL will
> probably still be required for SSL sockets.

I'm fine with doing it the simpler way and adding in support for other
systems PRN. Having said that, Martin, if this is high priority for
you let me know.

Geremy Condra