Rolf Kalbermatter Posted March 14 Report Share Posted March 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, ShaunR said: Building the protocol from scratch isn't a barrier for me - I'm on a roll The difficulty is that it requires DTLS (the UDP version of TLS). DTLS is something I've played with in the past and it was somewhat awkward to integrate into what I have currently so I moved past it and on to other features that I desperately wanted. CoAP would force me to look at DTLS again as it is something I've wanted, but never had a need for. IMO CoAP is a far superior protocol to MQTT. I don't really understand why MQTT gets so much love. Most likely because of its use of DTLS. 😁 OpenSSL's support of this was fairly "flaky" back when I did my Network library. Many problems were surrounding it, some of them were actually kind of unfixable with the DTLS standard at that time. Now this was around OpenSSL 0.9.6 or so, so I would assume that a lot has changed since. And yes I got it to work, but only had done minimum testing with it. It was clear that more extended use of it would sooner or later bring out troubles with it. Some for sure in my interpretation of the OpenSSL API at that time, but some also unfixable for me without changing OpenSSL itself. Edited March 14 by Rolf Kalbermatter Quote Link to comment
ShaunR Posted March 14 Author Report Share Posted March 14 2 hours ago, Rolf Kalbermatter said: Most likely because of its use of DTLS. 😁 OpenSSL's support of this was fairly "flaky" back when I did my Network library. Many problems were surrounding it, some of them were actually kind of unfixable with the DTLS standard at that time. Now this was around OpenSSL 0.9.6 or so, so I would assume that a lot has changed since. And yes I got it to work, but only had done minimum testing with it. It was clear that more extended use of it would sooner or later bring out troubles with it. Some for sure in my interpretation of the OpenSSL API at that time, but some also unfixable for me without changing OpenSSL itself. Last time I looked it was about 1.1.1e. I don't think it was much better. I bypassed it in the end because it needed callbacks for cookies-wasn't prepared to do that at the time. I'm hoping they've moved on from there with full blown certificate verification but if they haven't, I now have a place for callbacks in the API. Quote Link to comment
ShaunR Posted Wednesday at 10:43 AM Author Report Share Posted Wednesday at 10:43 AM So. that's a resounding "don't bother" on the CoAP then Quote Link to comment
Rolf Kalbermatter Posted Wednesday at 10:54 AM Report Share Posted Wednesday at 10:54 AM 9 minutes ago, ShaunR said: So. that's a resounding "don't bother" on the CoAP then Well. It's more likely a very resounding "I have no idea if I'm ever going to need that. For now I just refrain from commenting on the matter!" 😎 Quote Link to comment
ShaunR Posted Wednesday at 11:08 AM Author Report Share Posted Wednesday at 11:08 AM 12 minutes ago, Rolf Kalbermatter said: Well. It's more likely a very resounding "I have no idea if I'm ever going to need that. For now I just refrain from commenting on the matter!" 😎 As you are the only one that has commented on it al all (indirectly). I think that's a resounding "don't bother". Also means I don't have to look too closely at DTLS just yet Quote Link to comment
Jordan Kuehn Posted Wednesday at 04:41 PM Report Share Posted Wednesday at 04:41 PM 5 hours ago, ShaunR said: As you are the only one that has commented on it al all (indirectly). I think that's a resounding "don't bother". *ahem* Not that I'm suggesting that you do bother haha. Quote Link to comment
ShaunR Posted Wednesday at 05:29 PM Author Report Share Posted Wednesday at 05:29 PM 40 minutes ago, Jordan Kuehn said: *ahem* Not that I'm suggesting that you do bother haha. Aha! Yes. Apologies. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.