3 ms·
Is this still under active development? I looked at this two years ago, and it didn't have TLS 1.3 support, so I went with openssl and have replaced that with
by berkut 4y ago
Is this still under active development?
I looked at this two years ago, and it didn't have TLS 1.3 support, so I went with openssl and have replaced that with s2n (which uses bits of openssl under-the-hood) last year for some things.
The features page looks like TLS 1.3 still isn't supported, and the git changelog doesn't show much happening...
- tialaramex 4y agoI expect that the focus on size constraint means this attracts a lot fewer "Hey, here's a cute thing somebody might want" changes, it also means the skillset needed to contribute at all is probably more demanding, if you're used to just calling malloc() whenever you need somewhere to keep a structure this project doesn't want your code.
- stefan_ 4y agoI think TLS 1.3 has some "features" that essentially take a giant dump on trying to make them work in a resource constrained, no dynamic allocation environment. That might have blunted the enthusiasm to work more on it.