Re: [reSIProcate] 1.0 release candidate
Great stuff.
I'd love to see at least 13 addressed in this release. : )
FYI - testTimer and testAppTimer periodically fail in windows for some
reason (some strange timing issue) - but I don't think this is anything
new.
RFC4475TortureTests run without any asserts - does this means it passes?
Are there any define's required in order to get all RFC4475TortureTests
to pass?
All other tests in rutil/test and stack/test pass.
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Byron Campen
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:12 PM
> To: resiprocate-devel
> Subject: [reSIProcate] 1.0 release candidate
>
>
> Most of the open issues that we have been discussing have been
> addressed at this point, but we have still not fixed/come to a
decision
> on the following:
>
>
> 4. UDP Transport enhancement patch to peek message size and
> allocate buffer appropriately.
> 4. Not fixed (the MSG_PEEK | MSG_TRUNC trick is not portable at
> all). Although, it would be easy to set up a 64K staging buffer where
> the datagram is initially copied, and then allocate a smaller buffer
> and copy again)
>
> 6. Not using PrivateKey pass phrases at all. All private keys
> must be unencrypted on the disk.
> 6. Probably not fixed (Cullen)
>
> 7. Change to DateCategory to make is more compatible with other
> implementations.
> 7. Not addressed (we probably should if it is easy)
>
> 13. TLS Client Connect Inefficiency.
> 13. Not addressed. Discussing on list.
>
>
> Do these things need to be fixed for the 1.0 release? Can they wait
for
> 1.1? Opinions? (Unless these are show-stoppers, we should probably
> press on)
>
>
> As far as general testing goes:
>
> make install seems to be working fine on FC4 and OS 10.4.
>
> I have verified that "make check" works on both FC4 and OS 10.4.
>
> tfm also works on both FC4 and OS 10.4. (except for the
testEarlyMedia
> case, but this appears to be a timing issue in the
> test-case)
>
> Scott has tested the build (at least) on Windows. I'd feel better if I
> knew we were passing some test-cases.
>
> We are passing the protos test suite on FC4 with the PEDANTIC_STACK
> build flag set (ie, we fully parse every message, giving more
> opportunities for the parser to explode).
>
> It looks to me like we would pass RFC 4475 Torture-Tests (at least as
> far as stack requirements go, I don't know about DUM), but until the
> test-case is completely written (a LOT of work), we cannot claim to be
> Torture-Tests compliant. This will have to wait.
>
>
>
> I think we will not have any problems dropping a release candidate
> today. As per Jason's suggestion, we will just be giving a tag and a
> revision number for the release candidate. Unless something pops up, I
> will be doing this at the end of the day (5ish Central Time).
>
> Best regards,
> Byron Campen
>