BIND 10 #2402: split cryptolink sign/verify

[BIND 10 Development]

#2402: split cryptolink sign/verify
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  fdupont
  fdupont                            |                Status:  new
                       Type:         |             Milestone:
  enhancement                        |            Resolution:
                   Priority:         |             Sensitive:  0
  medium                             |           Sub-Project:  Core
                  Component:         |  Estimated Difficulty:  4
  Unclassified                       |           Total Hours:  0
                   Keywords:         |
            Defect Severity:  Low    |
Feature Depending on Ticket:         |
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Description changed by fdupont:

Old description:

> As discussed in the bind10-dev mailing list, PKCS#11 and some other
> crypto libraries make a difference between a context for a signing or for
> a verify operation, so typically the update() function has two different
> and incompatible instances.
> There are two ways to fix this in crypto link:
>  - the hard/heavy but statically checked way by split classes into a
> verify and a sign variants
>  - the soft but dynamically checked way but just adding a 2 item enum
> about the expected operation
> The bind 9 PKCS#11 only experiment showed the second/soft way is enough.

New description:

 As discussed in the bind10-dev mailing list, PKCS!#11 and some other
 crypto libraries make a difference between a context for a signing or for
 a verify operation, so typically the update() function has two different
 and incompatible instances.
 There are two ways to fix this in crypto link:
  - the hard/heavy but statically checked way by split classes into a
 verify and a sign variants
  - the soft but dynamically checked way but just adding a 2 item enum
 about the expected operation
 The bind 9 PKCS!#11 only experiment showed the second/soft way is enough.

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2402#comment:3>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development