Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
mozilla.dev.planning
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion NSS 3.12 codesize hit (Was: Milestone Scheduling)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Robert Sayre  
View profile  
 More options Jul 22 2007, 2:59 am
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: Robert Sayre <say...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 02:59:05 -0400
Local: Sun, Jul 22 2007 2:59 am
Subject: Re: NSS 3.12 codesize hit (Was: Milestone Scheduling)
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Mike Connor wrote:

> On 21-Jul-07, at 2:52 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:

>> Mike Connor wrote:
>>> I'm not saying a 9% Z hit is shippable (I'm going to ignore mZ, since
>>> it doesn't include libxul or thebes, and is therefore broken right
>>> now), but I think we will take some sort of nontrivial hit, and I
>>> think we need to be prepared for that in order to get onto the new
>>> NSS version.  That hit should be as small as possible, but I see no
>>> situation where we'll throw away EV cert support over a codesize hit.

>> OK. So where are we going to compromise? Performance? Fit and finish?
>> Ship date?

> I'm not saying any of those should be affected, they should not be, to
> my knowledge.  

That doesn't sound reasonable. We are going to accept a very large body
of code with known quality control problems.

> If you think any of these will be affected by the NSS
> 3.12 work, please speak up.  As it stands I don't believe there's any
> unnecessary hit to any of them, do you have data suggesting otherwise?

I'm not the one claiming we should accept unknown risk for unknown
benefit, so the burden of proof is not on me.

> That said, EV cert support is listed as a P1 (release blocker)
> requirement for Firefox 3, so we intend to ship it, and we'll take a
> ship delay to get it.  The decision was made, and nothing I've heard or
> seen has caused me to change my own perspective on that requirement.

We are going to support EV certs in Firefox 3. Thus far, they don't have
any measurable benefits, but it turns out we invented them, and it would
be too easy for our competitors to depict us as insecure if we dropped
them. So, here we are. We should at least assess the cost.

>> It's pretty late in the game, and I don't see how taking a megabyte of
>> PKI code and adding front-end features for whatever it does is
>> compatible with our other goals.

> Who said we're going to take a megabyte of codesize hit?

We can reduce the codesize by diverting time and effort from other things.

-Rob


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google